Comparing American-Armenian Relations to Russian-Armenian Relations

On November 02, 2012, the well known head of the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, Steven Blank, produced
an interesting article in which he publicly called on Washington to
openly embrace the bloody dictatorship in Baku as an ally of the United
States. Then on
the evening of November 14, 2012, the Azerbaijan-America Alliance
in Washington DC organized a gala dinner reception at the Reagan Center
-

According to a trusted source that attended the dinner reception, over 200 diplomats were present at the event. Reportedly, the VIP guests, mostly ambassadors and some thirty US congressmen, got small
oil barrels and mini rugs as party gifts. Speaker of the HouseBoehner was also present.
Interestingly, the president of the US Hellenic
Association was there as well. Although the gathering was said to have
been cultural in scope, an Azeri event organizer who spoke during the
night emphasized
the need for more US
involvement in the region, and went on to suggest that Iran is indeed a
problem. The
same speaker also mentioned that the Russian-Georgian war of 2008 has
caused Baku
to think that something similar may occur to them, implying Russian
support for Armenian Artsakh.Yes, I understand: Boehner and Blank can hardly be considered Armenia-friendly. But, what about Armenia-friendly American officials?Well, speaking of Armenia-friendly officials: Nancy
Pelosi is one of the American empire's most "pro-Armenian" politicians
and one that enjoys widespread support and adoration by
American-Armenians throughout the US. Well, now, Nancy is raising a
glass to toast the US's strategic partnership not with Armenia - but
with Azerbaijan
-

She is perhaps also sharing a few laughs with the Turks about the
ever-gullible American-Armenian community and that silly thing called
the "Armenian lobby".Anyway, I
don't want to make too much of this "pro-Armenian" US official's
insulting photo op with Turkic barbarians, but I have to say this: What
is it going to take to finally convince our idiots that US officials
cannot - by the very nature of Western politics - be a friend of
Armenians regardless of how many times Armenians bend-over for them?
While they have been giving the American-Armenian community lip service,
Western officials have also been actively conspiring against Armenia.
But, despite it all, American-Armenian community representatives
continue to proudly do the bidding of Washingtonian reptiles inside
Armenia. In final analysis, Armenians in the US deserve every spit in
the face they get from their beloved masters in Washington.Closeness of relations between nations boils down to geopolitics. As a result, Western interests had gotten very
close to the oil-rich dictatorship in Baku during the years prior to the
Russian-Georgian war of 2008. The war in question dealt a severe blow to Western plans in the south Caucasus and saw
the liberation of south Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgian rule. The
war may have been short-lived but its geostrategic implications were of
historic proportions. The resulting new "reality on the ground" caused
the West and its regional allies to take a big step backwards -

With
the West's ambitious south Caucasus experiment - Georgia - effortlessly
mutilated by Russian forces, Baku has been feeling like a hostage to
Moscow in recent years. Consequently, there have been efforts from Baku
and Washington to revitalize their relationship. As you will see,
pumping billions of dollars into Azerbaijani oilfields, diverting
Israeli arms to the Azerbaijani military and training Azeri marksmen in
American facilities is not deemed enough support for Baku by Washington
insiders.Before
I go on about Washington's growing hostility towards Armenia, I'd like
to make a statement about Armenia's "political opposition" because no
discussion about Turco-Western relations would be complete without also
addressing Armenia's Western-led idiots.

Armenians in service of the empire

Washington is the same political entity that subversive organizations such as Policy Forum Armenia (PFA), Heritage Party, Founding Parliament (formerly known as Pre-Parliament) and Civilitas get their funding and most probably their directives from. This is the same political entity
that is behind men like Raffi Hovanissian, Zaruhi Postanjian, Vartan Oskanian, David Sanasaryan, Richard
Giragosian and Paruyr Hayrikian. This is the same political entity who's
close NATO ally continues to blockade Armenia. This is the same political entity that has been spearheading efforts to deny the Armenian Genocide. This is the same political entity
that has been actively trying to distort Armenian history. This is the
same Washington that has been promoting Globalism (an Anglo-centric,
Afro venerating, Jews worshiping, pseudo-cultural abomination being imposed upon humanity), genetically altered foods, religious cults,
Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, Azeri-film festivals and gay parades
inside Armenia.

Despite its growing hostility towards Yerevan, Armenians continue to serve the American empire.

As
Washington chases imperial dreams in the south Caucasus, they are
cleverly using their levers of control to empower "anti-corruption"
activists in Armenia to weaken the pro-Russian government in Yerevan. In
other words, as Western officials pursue their self-serving geostrategic
agendas, they are encouraging the self-destructive peasantry within
Armenia's political opposition to make Armenians chase their tails with
silly nonsense.I
would like to remind the reader again that Armenia's most pressing
problems today are geopolitical, geographical - and cultural - in
nature.Until
these fundamental problems are not somehow solved, Armenia will
continue to suffer from severe socioeconomic and sociopolitical ailments
even if all of Armenia's dreaded "oligarchs" turned into pretty little
angels overnight.Please revisit the following blog commentaries for more insights regarding the topic of combating corruption in Armenia, the political West and Armenians in Washington's service -

In
my opinion, when it comes to combating "corruption" I think Armenia has
more to learn from Russia's experience than from the West. In fact,
Yerevan needs to follow Moscow's footsteps.

A simple matter of priorities

Before
one can fully concentrate on internal/domestic matters and begin to
flirt with limited forms of democracy, it first needs to stabilize its
political landscape, find reliable trade partners, solve its external
problems with neighbors and secure its borders.

After
Vladimir Putin's bloodless coup in 2000, it took Moscow over ten years
to get its geopolitical and economic problems solved for the most part
before it could slowly begin to embark on a domestic campaign to tackle
issues pertaining to lawlessness in the country. In other words, it
took the powerful Russian state over ten years to cleanse Russia of its
1990's era criminals and secure its borders - before it began looking
into its domestic issues. It's a matter of strategic priorities.
With the nation's power structures back safely under Russian control and
with various geopolitical matters solved during the past several years,
Kremlin officials are only now beginning to feel confident enough to
begin seriously addressing pressing sociological issues in the country.

Similarly,
we Armenians cannot realistically expect there to be an effective
"fight against corruption" in our poor, landlocked, remote and blockaded
nation stuck in one of the most unstable and volatile neighborhoods in
the world - especially by those who are taking their orders from the
West!

As usual, our Western-led "anti-corruption" yahoos in Armenia have it all wrong.
This is what I mean when I say Western officials want us to keep
chasing our tails with pursuits that are unobtainable and may in reality
cause sociopolitical instability. The following are samples
of how Western financed activists in Founding Parliament movement are attempting to sow sociopolitical instability inside Armenia during these tumultuous times -

They
are more-or-less attempting to create a parallel government in Armenia
ahead of the up-coming presidential elections there. This is their way
of seeding Armenia's political landscape with unrest in the near future.
Taking into consideration the low caliber of the individuals involved, I
personally do not think they will be successful in their attempt to
overthrow the Armenian government. However, I do think that these people
are still capable of doing some damage. At the very least, they can set
the country back a few years similar to what Levon's criminals did back
in early 2008.

Do
not be fooled their their lofty rhetoric, it's all sound and fury
signifying nothing. Armenia's political opposition today is made up of
clueless idiots, 1990s era criminals, self-serving opportunists and
Western agents. When it comes to Armenia's volatile political landscape,
Armenians simply must be mindful of the following: Those waiting on
the political sidelines in Armenia to take control if the current regime
falls are direct and indirect, willing and unwitting servants of the
Anglo-American-Zionist global order. In other words, those currently
in position to exploit political turmoil in Armenia are those that can
easily lead the young republic down the path of destruction. This
is why true Armenian patriots that genuinely care about the health and
well-being of the Armenian state will stick with the devil they know.

At
this point, we can only hope that as with other things that have
traditionally trickled down to Yerevan from Moscow, President Putin's
anti-corruption campaign currently in full gear in the Russian
Federation will also manage to reach Armenia eventually. Although we are
recently seeing signs of this in Yerevan, I would like to see more done
to curb Armenia's 1990's era criminals. I am confidant that as Moscow
secures its Eurasian fortress and begins to address its pressing
domestic matters, Yerevan will follow suit. In
the meanwhile, however, what Armenia does not need are the services of
our Captain Americas. As a general rule, anything that is conceived,
led, inspired or funded by the political West must be suspect.
Therefore, any political activist in Armenia that maintains any kind of
ties to the political West must likewise be considered suspect.

Although generally speaking Armenians, American-Armenians in particular, have a difficult time admitting it to themselves,
Washingtonian/Western funded organizations in Yerevan, regardless of their stated goals, are in Armenia to
pursue agendas that are ultimately detrimental to the newly created republic.

Washington by its very nature cannot be a real friend to Armenia

Many
of us know that historically, the political West has been comfortably in
bed with Turks. The existence of Turkey at the crossroads of the world
(i.e. Asia Minor) has served Western interests very well for many generations.
Even as far back as the mid-19th century, the Western powers then,
Anglo-French forces, sided with the Ottoman Turks against the Russian
Empire. During the Soviet era, Turkey played a very important role as a
buffer for the West. Today, the Turks (regardless of the kind of
government they have) continue to play a very important geostrategic
role for Western officials. The existence of a powerful Turkey
(as long as it is not in an
alliance with its Arab, Iranian or Russian neighbors) ensures that the
Western world will have a buffer zone against the spread of Arab nationalism, Iranian influence and of course
Russia.Turks,
the Zionist state, Sunni Islamic kingdoms, Wahhabist terrorist organizations and more
recently segments within the region's Kurdish populations are some of the levers with which the Judaeo-Western world
manages the strategic Middle East.

As
a result of certain geostrategic realities that propel Western
interests in the region, the Western world will not, to say the least,
have the best of intentions towards Yerevan. In other words, because
Armenia is small, remote and poor; because the Armenian nation has historical problems with Turks/Azeris; because
the Armenian nation is a strategic ally of the Russian Federation;
because the Armenian nation has very friendly relations with Iran, the
Western world will not look upon Armenia favorably.

The Western world's problem with Armenia is simply a matter of geostrategic calculus. Significant
numbers of Armenians today, however, seem to have a very difficult time
accepting this reality. How could a political entity heralded around
the world as a champion for "human rights" and "democratic values" be so
antagonistic towards a small, impoverished, vulnerable and embattled
nation? How could the political West be so hostile towards a cultured
people that has suffered so much pain and misery in recent history? Many Armenians are still hold American politicians in high esteem, because the promotion of American Exceptionalismby American officials (i.e the self-bestowed divine right to make or break nations simply because America is special) and
the global spread of American/Western pop culture (i.e. consumerism,
pop music, movies, fashion, etc) has managed to drastically alter the
perceptive abilities of significant numbers of Armenians, particularly
English speaking Armenians. Attempting to combat this modern phenomenon
is one of the main motivations behind this blog.

As
we watch Washington's crimes against humanity around the
world; as we watch Washington provide support for Turks and Islamists
against Arabs, Iranians, Armenians, Serbians, Greeks, Cypriots and
Russians - let us once again remind ourselves that this is the same Washington that Armenian "activist" visit to get their
inspiration - and some times their funding - against the Armenian state... of course all in the
name of "civil society" and fighting "corruption"! In
other words, as Washington continues to conspire against Armenia, some Armenians are continuing to conspire against Armenia
for Washington.

Armenia in the eyes of Russians and AmericansSteven
Blank's article appears below my
commentary. Please read it. Steven Blank is not someone that should be
taken lightly. He is a Washington insider. He is in fact a very accurate
representative of what
Washingtonian interests are in the south Caucasus. Therefore, if we
Armenians want to know what Washington is thinking or planning we simply
need to listen to what the Steven Blanks of America are saying and not
what the Frank Pallones of America want us Armenians to think. The few
Armenia-friendly officials in Washington exist only to provide the
American-Armenian community with lip-service and keep it hopeful. Armenia-friendly American officials is essentially how the
empire manipulates and controls its Armenians subjects.When
it comes to Yerevan-Washington relations, the calculus is rather
simple: Armenia's friends are Washington's enemies and Armenia's enemies
are Washington's friends. Moreover, Washington is in the south Caucasus for two geostrategic reasons which have nothing to do with "democracy" or "human rights": 1) Washington desires to curb Russian and Iranian influence in the south Caucasus; 2) Washington desires to exploit Central Asian energy. Thus, when it comes to matters pertaining to
Armenia, we Armenians cannot trust American officials. By extrapolation, when it
comes to politics in Armenia, we cannot trust Armenians with
Washingtonian connections.

As
long as the world's geopolitical cards are stacked they way they have
been in recent decades, Washington will continue to look at Armenia as
either an enemy state or as an obstacle to its imperial ambitions in the
south Caucasus. Due to various reasons, however, Washington has
traditionally refrained from being openly hostile against Armenia. And
not wanting to be on the receiving end of America's overt hostility (as
well continue receiving financial benefits) is precisely why official
Yerevan has devoted considerable amount of time and resources in keeping
its ties with Washington somewhat active. Yerevan
must be aware, however, that as the American empire's geostrategic
pursuits in Eurasia and in the Middle East suffer setbacks, Washington
will grow increasingly hostile towards Armenia.

As
the Western agenda throughout Eurasia and the Middle East begins to
slowly unravel, their
"humanitarian" and
"democratic" masks will gradually come off. The coming presidential
elections in Armenia will also serve to compound the matter because ever since President Sargsyan began moving closer to Moscow soon after his presidential victory in 2008, American officials have not looked upon Yerevan very favorably. The matter has been significantly exasperated with Armenia's membership in the Eurasian Economic Union. Although Washington is doing its best to keep lines-of-communication with Yerevan open, we can expect to see American officials intensify their efforts against the Armenian state through the exploitation of their most favorite levers operating inside Armenia.

We
Armenians need to somehow grow out of our political illiteracy and put
aside our love of all things American and come to the sober recognition that
the political West, by its very nature, is not and cannot be Armenia's
friend.

If there
still remains any doubt as to what side of the political fence
Washington is on when it comes to Armenia, the articles following
this commentary should be self-explanatory and they should
help the reader finally come-to-terms with Caucasian realpolitik and
Armenia's
place in it.
I have posted a fairly large sampling of various different news
articles and political assessments from Western, Armenian, Turkish and
Russian sources. My intent in doing this is to help
the reader compare Washington's rhetoric regarding Armenia with that of
Moscow's, and in doing so reveal the geostrategic role Armenia
naturally plays in the south Caucasus.In an article appearing in Russia Today, Mikhail Aleksandrov, a political
analyst working for the Institute of CIS made the following comment
about Moscow's military presence inside Armenia -

These highly influential men in Russia couldn't be more candid
or more accurate in their assessments of the current geopolitical
situation in the south Caucasus or more pro-Armenian. The rhetoric expressed by
Alexsei
Arbatov and Kostantin Sivkov in particular is quite similar to the kind of rhetoric
we often hear expressed by American officials about the Zionist state.
These two men basically outlined the fundamental geostrategic importance of Russia's presence in the south Caucasus (an importance that real Armenian patriots feel instinctually) as well as Armenia's extreme importance in the eyes of Kremlin officials.

Now, let's compare the above quotes about Armenia with what US officials (real policymaker and influential people and not handlers like Evens, Pallone and Schiff who are tasked with giving our American-Armenian sheeple with lip-service) have had to say about Armenia. The following comments were made by George Friedman, the American-Jew director of a much respected political Think Tank based in Washington -

“Turkey should speak to
Armenia not of Nagorno Karabakh. It should discuss reducing Russia’s
role in this country. The presence of Russian troops in Armenia does
not meet Turkey’s interests. In such conditions, the opening of borders
with Armenia is of no use for Turkey, on the contrary, it may spoil
its relations with Azerbaijan. So keep Armenia isolated in this case.”

A Washington insider, Steven Blank, had this to say -

"The violence plaguing the Arab world should move U.S. policy
makers, decision makers and experts to consider how and why the U.S.
should strengthen stable, pro-American governments in Muslim countries
against internal or external threats. Azerbaijan exemplifies such
states. Though it is still an emerging democracy, born from the shadows
of the Soviet Union, it has stood squarely with the U.S. against
terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Central Asia and throughout the world,
all at considerable risk to itself... If
war resumed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Armenia’s recent military
and diplomatic exercises have served notice that no doubt with Moscow’s
and Tehran’s encouragement and help, that it would attack Azeri
pipelines that carry much-needed oil and gas to America’s European
allies."

Another Washington insider and former US ambassador to Azerbaijan, Matthew Bryza, had this to say -

"Thinking strategically about Azerbaijan doesn’t mean sacrificing
Western values. Struggling reformers in Iran can look for inspiration to
neighboring Azerbaijan, also a Shiite-majority country but one in which
a 1,400 year-old Jewish community enjoys strong state support and where
women gained the vote a year earlier than their American sisters. The
United States and its European allies would be wise not to write off
Azerbaijan, and instead pursue the full range of interests – and values –
they share with this small, but strategically significant country"

Another Washington insider, Michael Rubin, had this to say -

"Sadly, Armenia remains largely
antagonistic to the United States. In 2009, Armenia voted with the
United States on important issues at the United Nations less than half the time; In contrast, Israel voted with the United States 100% of the time.Armenia has also embraced Iran to the detriment of U.S. interests and security. Armenia has even reportedly supplied Iran with weapons, which the Islamic Republic used to kill Americans"

And in another article, a character named Stephen Schwartz, an American-Jew that has supposedly converted to Islam had this to say -

"1995 massacre of some 8,000 Bosnian
Muslim men and boys by Serbian terrorists – is the most prominent recent
symbol of Moscow-backed genocidal aggression in Europe", "Armenia also
assaulted Azerbaijan", "Muscovite strategy of Slav-Orthodox assault on
vulnerable Muslims had been visible not merely in Afghanistan, but in
Europe, too..."

These
words should not surprise or shock anyone because these men are merely
expressing thoughts/opinions that have been widespread in Washington for a very long time. I'd like to remind the reader that Friedman, Bryza, Blank and Rubin areAleksandrov's, Arbatov's, Stupishin's and Sivkov's American counterparts. As
you can see, understanding the dangers of the Anglo-American-Zionist
alliance has been the main motivation behind my pro-Russian stance. I
have been using various cyberian venues to cry out about Russia's
crucially important presence in Armenia for nearly a decade. For
nearly ten years I have been attempting to help Armenians recognize
that Russia is the single most important factor in Armenia's existence
as a nation-state in the Caucasus today. As I have repeatedly said,
no Russia in the Caucasus means no Armenia in the Caucasus! The
day
Russia is forced out of the Caucasus is the day the region will turn
into a
Turkic/Islamic playground financed by a consortium of Western and Israeli energy
interests, and not even a million of our "Dashnak fedayees" or "anti-corruption"
crusaders will be able stop
it from happening. This sobering realization seems to evade many, if not
most Armenians today.

And this brings up another point: It's the Mikhail
Aleksandrovs,Alexsei
Arbatovs, Vladimir Stupishins and Kostantin Sivkovs
of the Russian Federation that the Armenian Diaspora
needs to be working on as obsessively as they work on genocide
recognition if not more so, because at the end of the day politically
tying Russia to
Armenia (i.e. Armenians harnessing Russia's immense potential for
Armenia's benefit) is simply much-much more important for our fledgling
homeland than having any nation recognize the Armenian Genocide,
including the US, including Turkey...Armenia would benefit immensely if Armenians simply came to the realization that the keys to Armenia's economic prosperity and national security lies in Moscow. Yet, many of us are still wasting time kissing feet in Washington.In real political terms, what
has our supposedly "powerful Armenian lobby" in the US accomplished all
these years? In real political terms, the answer is nothing!

We
are wasting our time and limited resources in an anti-Armenian viper's
nest. The time has come to take our pan-Armenian activism to the
Kremlin, our strategic ally, in fact our only natural ally. And instead
of acting like a bunch of worthless Arabs complaining about Jews doing
this or that in the US, let's for once stop admiring Jews and start
acting like them. Let's learn from what Jews have done in the US
by aggressively and collectively work on becoming a ubiquitous presence
in the Kremlin.When it
comes to political matters relating to Armenia, I ask the reader to
compare the reporting styles of Russian news agencies to American ones. The following blog post from a little over two years ago is related to this topic -

Virtually
every Russian official or state representative that has visited Armenia
has paid the Armenian Genocide memorial complex an official visit...
but Western officials cannot even say the "G" word? Russian-Turkish bilateral trade is much greater in volume than the American-Turkish
trade... yet Moscow has the courage to publicly state that it is ready
to defend Armenia against Turkey but American officials cannot even say
the "G" word? There has
been an anti-Armenian agenda inside Washington for many decades. Yet,
come April,
we still have fools in the American-Armenian community that drop their
pants and
bend-over with hope every single time.This
reminds me of yet another wonderful work by Russia's RT. On the
twentieth anniversary of Armenia's independence, RT featured the
following documentary about Armenia -

In this RT produced documentary, the Armenian Genocide was acknowledged; Armenia's prehistoric
history was acknowledged; the Armenianness of Nagorno Karabakh was
acknowledged; the earthquake... the Turkish blockade... the first Christian
nation... the monasteries... Mount Ararat... Armenian brandy...
Khachkars... It was all there! Had
this wonderfully positive documentary
been produced by the
US government, I have no doubt that
our proud American-Armenian community would have had one big collective
orgasm and the film
would have gotten massive diasporan viewership worldwide. However,
since the documentary in question was produced by them pesky
"Ruskies" in Moscow, who as we are told are constantly trying to
depopulate Armenia and sell it to
Turks, chances are you have not yet seen it.

Ok, that was very nice of RT, but what has Washington, the beacon of democracy, done to commemorate Armenia's independence?Well,
a couple of years ago they had one of their fledgling vermin, from the
Hovanissian family of course, produce a scathing article attacking the
Armenian state in the mainstream US press on the eve of Armenia's
independence day celebrations. Garin Hovanissian's garbage called "Who Will Decide Armenia's Destiny - Patriots or Tyrants?" can be read below this commentary. And for Armenia's 2oth anniversary last year, the"Carnegie Endowment For International Peace" sponsored a panel discussion called
"Lessons Learned From 20 Years of Independence and Statebuilding".During the event, three of Washington's Armenian whores in Armenia called for revolution, chaos and upheaval as a means of uprooting "entrenched corruption" in Armenia. The
following is the link to the now infamous panel discussion -

These
self-destructive peasants, whores and mercenaries presenting themselves as
representatives of Armenia in Washington are the Armenian version of Libya's NTC and
Syria's SNC, minus the Al-Qaeda connection. These filth
would be the ones on CNN and BBC enthusiastically explaining and
excusing the NATO bombing of Armenia if God forbid that day ever
arrives. And believe me, that day would arrive the very next day after Armenia is deprived of its Russian military presence.Without a Russian military presence in the region, the West is fully
capable of placing Armenia under Turkish, Azeri and/or Georgian
oversight... or just simply shatter it into pieces like what they have done
to Serbia, Iraq, Libya and Syria. The only real lesson that should have been
learned by Yerevan during the past twenty years was to stay as far away from
Washington as possible.Sadly, however, that is a lesson that has not yet been learned by our people.Folks,
the
Cold War is long over. The Soviet Union is long gone. It is time to
wake-up from our deep hypnosis and recognize that Washington has become a
source of evil in Armenia and in the world. Those of us who do not see
this are either deaf, dumb or blind. Fearing
that
emerging powers may one day begin to compete against them, the
Anglo-American-Zionist alliance has been on a global rampage in recent
years. They are seeking
to maintain their control over the world's strategic reserves of energy.
They are seeking to maintain their control over the world's commodities
exchange. They are seeking to maintain their control over the world's
major trade routes. Their long-term geostrategic intent is to curb the
growth of potentially competitive powers before they rise. They
want to destroy Iran, contain or weaken Russia and keep China dependent.And
as long as Yerevan is on bad terms with their allies and on good terms
with their enemies, Armenia will remain an obstacle for
them. This is the bottom line.Armenians
must finally learn that the last thing on the minds of Western
officials is democracy, fair elections, freedom or gay rights. Armenians must learn
that the political West is simply interested in pushing Russia out of
the region, curbing Arab nationalism, subduing Iran and freely exploiting Central Asian energy.
Armenians must understand that in
the grand geostrategic scheme of the current world we live in,Armenia is nothing but a nuisance for the Western alliance. Therefore, any Armenian today that maintains any ties with Western institutions, regardless of their intentions, is ultimately a traitor to the Armenian homeland.The following articles should
help the reader finally come-to-terms with Caucasian realpolitik and
Armenia's
place in it. Please make time and read them, some are particularly eye opening.

Arevordi

November, 2012(articles amended 2018)

***

Steven Blank: US should work to strengthen relations with Azerbaijan

The violence plaguing the Arab world should move U.S. policy
makers, decision makers and experts to consider how and why the U.S.
should strengthen stable, pro-American governments in Muslim countries
against internal or external threats. Azerbaijan exemplifies such
states. Though it is still an emerging democracy, born from the shadows
of the Soviet Union, it has stood squarely with the U.S. against
terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Central Asia and throughout the world,
all at considerable risk to itself.

It has also fended off constant Russian and Iranian threats due to its
pro-American, pro-Western and pro-Israeli policies and confronts serious
problems and local threats. Not the least of these threats is the
possibility of a renewed war in Nagorno-Karabakh, one of the world's
most implacable and dangerous frozen conflicts.

If
war resumed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Armenia’s recent military
and diplomatic exercises have served notice that no doubt with Moscow’s
and Tehran’s encouragement and help, that it would attack Azeri
pipelines that carry much-needed oil and gas to America’s European
allies. Azerbaijan’s domestic policies, while not perfect, are also
under attack from Iran. In 2012 alone, three separate Iranian plots
involving incitement through religious agitation to terrorism, gun
running and plots to assassinate Israelis in Azerbaijan were uncovered
and thwarted. Iran also regularly calls Azerbaijan’s religious policies
anti-Islamic and regularly threatens to attack Azerbaijan if it hosted a
U.S. base. Thus, Iran presents Azerbaijan with a constant and genuine
threat.

Moreover, Syria’s civil war and Iran’s deteriorating
situation will probably increase Azerbaijan’s strategic importance to
the West. Also, Syria’s civil war is putting enormous pressure on Turkey
to intervene. Numerous incidents between Turkey and Syria have already
occurred while this war has also spurred the deterioration of Turkey’s
partnership with Russia. Should Turkey intervene, Russia could
conceivably block gas sales to Turkey since Turkey receives 2/3 of its
gas from Russia. Azerbaijan, thanks to its recently improved ties with
Turkey and the 2011 bilateral decision to build a gas pipeline from
Azerbaijan through Turkey to Europe (the Trans-Anatolian or TANAP
pipeine), could offer Turkey and Europe alternative gas sources to
resist Russian threats and blackmail.

Since 2010, if not
earlier, Russia has steadily deployed large numbers of combined forces
in the Caucasus, allegedly to defend against a projected Iranian counter
offensive against the Caucasus should the U.S. or Israel attack Iran
due to its nuclear program. This argument sounds illogical, for why
should Iran add to its enemies if it is attacked? But it represents a
plausible pretext for threatening both Azerbaijan and Georgia while
entrenching Russia’s military there as Russia strives to resubordinate
the Caucasus to its dictates. Meanwhile, Russia arms Armenia and
continually pressures Azerbaijan to deflect it from its pro-Western
trajectory.

Under these circumstances, what should
be done? In general, the U.S. should make clear to Azerbaijan that it
has its back. First,
in the domestic sphere, we should encourage Baku to undertake the
necessary liberalizing political, social, and economic reforms that
would strengthen its internal defenses against subversion under the
guise of religious agitation and increase the government’s legitimacy
and U.S. support for it.

Second, we must make clear to
Moscow and Tehran that if they launch a new aggressive conflict in the
Caucasus, the costs they incur thereby will be much more tangible and
greater than in 2008. Since Russian President Putin has admitted that
the 2008 war with Georgia, widely billed as an act of self-defense, was
actually a preplanned war of aggression from 2006 on, mere verbal
warnings to Russia do not suffice to deter further mischief here.

Third,
the U.S. must inspire the EU to intensify its quest for a dedicated
pipeline to bring gas from the Caspian basin and Central Asia to Europe
and counter Moscow’s widely documented efforts to use the gas weapon to
subvert European unity, democracy, and the independence of post-Soviet
states. Whether it is the EU’s projected Nabucco pipeline, the TANAP, or
another worthwhile alternative there is no time to lose.

Fourth,
Washington should simultaneously give unstinting support to the
Azeri-Turkish rapprochement, both for its own sake and because of its
implications for the Middle East and the Caucasus. This support must, as
a fifth point, coincides with a new, coordinated, and truly vigorous
effort to bring Armenia and Azerbaijan into a genuine negotiation
leading to an acceptable resolution of all the issues growing out of the
Nagorno-Karabakh war. All the interested parties could guarantee this
accord to reinforce regional stability. This process, if successful,
would stabilize the Caucasus, defuse Iranian intrigues and Russian
threats, open up Armenia to the world and give it an option beyond
Russia, while preventing hotheads from inadvertently or deliberately
inciting a war to impose their vision of a resolution of
Nagorno-Karabakah’s many issues.

The administration has
hitherto treated the South Caucasus as an afterthought or as an
overflight issue on the road to Afghanistan. Such neglect is dangerous
and misconceived. The mounting threats in the Middle East, Iran, and the
Caucasus show how vital it is that the U.S. strengthen pro-Western
regimes like Azerbaijan. For if we continue to neglect the Caucasus,
this neglect will quickly become malign. And malign neglect invariably
generates not only instability but also protracted violence.

This
month marks the 20th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the
United States and the post-Soviet republic of Azerbaijan, a country
that is currently playing a vital role in sustaining NATO forces in
Afghanistan, supporting Georgia
and other U.S. friends in Eurasia, and helping to moderate Iranian
and Russian ambitions in the energy-rich Caspian Basin region. But
Washington needs to prioritize its ties with Baku to strengthen the
partnership and to make sure that Azerbaijan and its fragile neighbors
in the geopolitically vital South Caucasus region remain strong and
stable.Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Azerbaijan was
among the first countries to offer the United States unconditional
support in the war against terrorism, opening its airspace to
Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Since then, its airbases
have provided landing and refueling support for U.S. military
transports to Afghanistan. Azerbaijan has also assumed a lead role in
allowing NATO countries to deliver material to their troops in
Afghanistan through the Northern Distribution Network, which passes through its territory.More quietly, Azerbaijan is helping to prevent Iran from expanding its influence in Eurasia. Located on Iran’s northern border, Azerbaijan is understandably leery of a direct confrontation with Tehran,
in part because of concerns over Iran’s large population of ethnic
Azeris as well as Iran’s illicit subversive activities in Azerbaijan.
But behind the scenes, Azerbaijan is providing the United States and
Israel with intelligence on Iran’s nuclear activities. And Israel
recently announced a major arms deal with Azerbaijan designed to bolster
their mutual security.Baku has even sought to reduce
tensions between Washington and Moscow over the issue of ballistic
missile defense to counter the Iranian missile threat by offering
them both shared use of the Russian military radar installation based
in Gabala. As U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Eric Rubin
correctly put it after talks last month with Azeri officials in Baku,
“Azerbaijan is with us” on the Iranian issue.Meanwhile, when it comes to European energy security, not only does Azerbaijan export enormous amounts of natural gas
from its own production, but it also serves as a vital land corridor
for Caspian and Central Asian energy deliveries to our European
allies. These deliveries decrease Europeans dependence on Russian and
Iranian energy sources and also help reduce the cost of U.S. energy
imports by dampening the effect of Iranian threats to close the Strait
of Hormuz or curtail its own oil exports. U.S. energy firms have a
major presence in Azerbaijan’s energy sector thanks to the
government’s preferential treatment of U.S. energy companies. This
partnership has helped propel the country’s GDP from $1.2 billion in
1992 to $54.4 billion.Azerbaijan was recently elected to serve
as a nonpermanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Already its
diplomats have supported U.S. efforts, opposed by Russia and China, to force the brutal Syrian government
to end its killing of innocent civilians. In the next two years, the
United States could conceivably need Azerbaijan’s support in future
votes -- to impose additional sanctions on Iran, for instance, or to
roll back North Korea’s nuclear program.One means to ensure
that the U.S.-Azerbaijani strategic partnership remains solid is to
help resolve Azerbaijan’s territorial dispute with its western
neighbor, Armenia. The two countries fought a brutal war in the early
1990s over the breakaway separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh, a
conflict that continues to fester:
Nagorno-Karabakh’s status remains uncertain and both nations
confront each other in a dangerous face-off that periodically flares
into violent military skirmishes along the border.Azerbaijan
has used some of its energy riches to build a powerful military that
many experts believe could forcefully seize the disputed territories,
which in addition to Nagorno-Karabakh include adjacent Azerbaijani
territory currently occupied by Armenian troops. Although Azerbaijani
officials have emphasized that they would like to settle this
dispute through peaceful means -- perhaps within a comprehensive
framework that would also achieve a normalization of diplomatic
relations between Armenia and Turkey -- they have indicated that they
cannot accept the status quo indefinitely. The 2008 Georgia War
shows how these supposed “frozen conflicts” in the former Soviet
Union can abruptly thaw and explode.Fortunately, the United
States has strong ties with Armenia, another good friend of the West.
Like Azerbaijan and Georgia, Armenia participates in NATO’s
Partnership for Peace program and contributes troops to NATO missions,
including in Kosovo and Afghanistan. And the United States provides
democracy assistance and other aid to Armenia.In October 2009,
Armenia and Turkey signed an accord, brokered by the U.S., to
establish diplomatic ties. The protocol, which called for the
reopening of the countries’ border and would also work toward
reducing tensions between the two countries, was the first major step
toward reconciliation that Armenia and Turkey had taken in the past
16 years. The Armenian parliament approved the agree,emt within the
timeframe cited in the documents, but the Turkish government is
awaiting a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to do so.The
Obama administration should step up its efforts to promote a
Nagorno-Karabakh settlement as a means to prevent any collateral
damage to U.S. security and energy interests in Eurasia that would
ensue from another Armenia-Azerbaijan war.The current structure for seeking a negotiated settlement -- the Minsk Group
of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which
includes the U.S., Russia, France and the OSCE -- has failed to make
enduring progress despite more than a decade of efforts. The
administration should appoint a high-level envoy of the sort that is
routinely sent to the Middle East, to present concrete bridging
proposals directly to the parties in conflict.Congress can support this effort by repealing an outdated provision of the 1992 Freedom of Support Act (Section 907)
(.pdf) that prohibits direct aid to Azerbaijan’s government.
Whatever its value was in ending the original Nagorno-Karabakh war,
the provision is now impeding U.S. diplomatic flexibility and
weakening U.S. influence in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, including
efforts to promote their democratic development and sustain their
autonomy from foreign influence. With respect to democracy, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe states that Azerbaijan does not meet its criteria for free and fair elections. In addition, the U.S. State Department has been critical
of the human rights situation in Azerbaijan. Sustained U.S.
diplomatic engagement with Azerbaijan and the other South Caucasus
governments could help overcome these deficiencies, which are
unfortunately widespread in the post-Soviet states. It would also
promote their political development and strategic autonomy.Ideally,
Congress and the administration should support a negotiated
settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with financial and
diplomatic support to both states, ranging from enhanced trade
benefits to full-scale U.S. diplomatic representation to U.S. efforts
to promote Armenian-Turkey reconciliation. Azerbaijan has shown its
willingness to be a friend to Washington, and right now, America needs
all the friends it can find in this strategic region.

Editor’s note: Matthew Bryza is a
former U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan and is now director of the
International Center for Defense and Security in Estonia and a senior
fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Patriciu Eurasia Center. The views
expressed are his own.

When a Western ally holds a presidential election that falls short of
international standards, should we write it off? Or should we take a
sober look at steps we can help the country take to meet our
expectations? That’s the question raised by the recent presidential election
in Azerbaijan, an ancient civilization undergoing breakneck
modernization just 22 years after its independence from the Soviet
Union.

Granted, President Ilham Aliyev faced no real competition for a third
term and election observers from the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe were particularly sharp in their criticism of the
electoral process. Making matters worse, the Central Election
Commission appeared to announce results before voting began when a
smartphone app developer allegedly tested its election software with
false results.

But this is only part of the story. President Aliyev is genuinely
popular. Two years ago, when I served as U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan,
independent polls reported Aliyev's approval rating at between 83
percent and 86 percent. These numbers, perhaps unimaginable for a
Western political leader, reflect the support he enjoys for delivering
what Azerbaijani citizens crave most: stability.

Azerbaijan nearly collapsed in the early
1990s: the country was gripped by poverty and had just suffered a
humiliating military defeat by Armenia in Azerbaijan’s region of
Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1993, a democratically elected president resigned
and voluntarily handed the job to Azerbaijan's Soviet-era leader and the
current president’s father, Heydar Aliyev. This transition is viewed in
Azerbaijan as a moment of national salvation, even by many
oppositionists. Azerbaijanis recognize that the elder Aliyev's bold
decisions to defy Moscow and connect Azerbaijan's oil and gas fields to
the West were critical to securing the country’s independence and
economic growth.

Aliyev has built on that success. GNP has tripled since 2006, while
poverty has dropped from 49 percent to just over 6 percent; reformist
economic policies have helped catalyze the growth of Azerbaijan’s
non-energy sectors. Still, even as the economy grows, many younger
Azerbaijanis aren’t satisfied with a monopolistic system they see as
limiting opportunity and social justice. Facebook activists and
journalists who call for the government's demise are often met with
confrontation.

Corruption also persists. Yes, the cliché says, “a fish rots from the
head.” But, in reality, rot spreads through the entire fish all at
once. While Western analysts have documented elite corruption, they have
focused little on how corruption permeates Azerbaijan’s grassroots.
Corruption in the education system is particularly debilitating.
Students are compelled to pay for grades; those who can afford it resort
to private tutors for real learning. As a result, Azerbaijan suffers
shortages of qualified doctors and other professionals, while young
Azerbaijanis learn the wrong ethical lessons: I will never forget the
high school senior who told me that her parents demanded she obtain the
same “right” as her peers to cheat on her graduation examination.

Fortunately, a reformist wind may be blowing. Last spring, the
legendarily corrupt minister of education was replaced by a young
reformer. Other positive changes are underway as well: The publication
of fees for expedited services and the advance of electronic government
have eliminated many under-the-table payments. Prominent businesspeople
recently told me they’re suffering fewer shakedowns by customs and tax
authorities, while two of the largest holding companies are elevating
their business practices to prepare for future initial public offerings. The West has a significant strategic interest in supporting Azerbaijan’s reform efforts.

On security, less than 24 hours after the September 11 attacks,
Azerbaijan offered U.S. military aircraft unlimited over-flights, and
subsequently emerged as a crucial resupply corridor for one-third of the
non-lethal supplies for coalition forces in Afghanistan. Cooperation on
counterterrorism has also been exceptional, thwarting attacks to save
many American lives, including my own. Azerbaijan is also an important energy partner, currently supplying
nearly 700,000 barrels per day of oil to European and global markets,
including 40 percent of Israel's consumption. Within five years, an
international consortium will begin delivering natural gas from
Azerbaijan to Greece, Albania and Italy, diversifying the European
Union’s natural gas supplies away from Russia.

Thinking strategically about Azerbaijan doesn’t mean sacrificing
Western values. Struggling reformers in Iran can look for inspiration to
neighboring Azerbaijan, also a Shiite-majority country but one in which
a 1,400 year-old Jewish community enjoys strong state support and where
women gained the vote a year earlier than their American sisters. The
United States and its European allies would be wise not to write off
Azerbaijan, and instead pursue the full range of interests – and values –
they share with this small, but strategically significant country.

Washington has been shaken to its core by allegations of Russia’s hacking and interference. Frequently, Americans hear more accusations about the extent to which Russia
attempted and, in some cases, succeeded in influencing the nation. More
is likely to be unveiled, including complicity of homegrown activists,
as independent counsel and congressional investigations more forward. Allegations
abound that President Trump’s foreign policy is influenced by close
relations and behind-the-scenes contacts among him and his staff with
Russian leadership. The most recent “Russian revelation” came in the
form of accusations of back-channel communications between presidential
adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner and the Russians — back channels
are a classic and vital facet of statecraft.The point is that of Russian infiltration.If Russia
is proved to be involved in a campaign of political interference
against American interests and there is every indication they will, then
it is vital to expose homegrown “activists,” who promote Russian
interests in Washington.Armenia, a client state of Russia
in the post-Soviet space, enjoys a well-established ethnic lobby in the
United States. Damaged by its support for socialist Bernie Sanders,
instead of seeking to repair a significantly degraded.A fairly simple calculus, Armenia cannot survive without copious Russian largesse; thus, the Armenian-American lobby does Russia’s
bidding in return for continued support. It possesses not only access,
but a devoutness of well-placed members of Congress. The websites and
“informational” emails of Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman,
Jackie Speier, all of California, and others substantiate. The
questionable attention of certain members of Congress with Armenia is not new — a member’s constituency notwithstanding — does that member have a responsibility to the U.S. first?In a period when tensions between the Western allies and Russia are reaching a boiling point, Armenia’s
surrogates are attempting to dictate American foreign policy in the
South Caucasus. A result of a clash of national interests in such global
crisis zones as Syria and Crimea, according to Mr. Trump, U.S.-Russia relations have reached an “all-time low.”The chattering class in Washington seems to ignore the client-state status of the Republic of Armenia and its role as a promoter of Russian geopolitical and geostrategic objectives in the Near East. Armenia’s open-source military and diplomatic doctrines emphasize strategic partnership with Russia as its main priority. In the context of Russia’s increasingly threatening and volatile behavior in Europe and the Middle East, Russia’s
strategic allies can hardly be regarded as friendly to the U.S. No
longer can we ignore Russian irredentist policies that would see much of
the former Soviet Union back in Moscow’s hands; this, in addition to
the global influence Moscow would see with Armenia is a linchpin.Alexsei
Arbatov, former deputy chairman of the Russia State Duma’s Defense
Committee, described Russian-Armenian relations as a “classic
military-political alliance.” He wrote, “Armenia will not survive without Russia, while, without Armenia, Russia will lose all its important positions in the Caucasus. even though Armenia is a small country, it is our forepost in the South Caucasus. I would say that Armenia is more important to us than Israel is to the Americans.”Using Armenia as a geopolitical and geostrategic outpost, Russia
projects its military might to American regional allies, Turkey, a NATO
member, U.S. ally Azerbaijan and beyond. Alexander Khramchikhin,
director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis in Moscow,
sheds light on the Kremlin’s views of Armenia’s role in a regional conflict: “Russian military bases deployed in Gyumri and Yerevan guarantee Armenia’s
security in case of war, not only against Azerbaijan, but also Turkey.
If we attack Turkey, it will be war against NATO. However, we will never
attack Turkey, it is clear. And if Turkey attacks Armenia and we have to save Armenia, it will be Russia’s and Armenia’s war against Turkey. NATO will not get involved in this conflict.”In
a surprising analysis titled “Trump, Iran, Karabakh and Armenian
lobby,” published in Mediamax.am, well-known Armenian strategist Areg
Galstyan conceded that Azerbaijan is America’s trusted ally and a
promoter of U.S. and Western policies in the region: “Washington
already has some experience of using Azerbaijan as an intelligence
bridgehead. Probably, in case an appropriate political decision is made,
Americans will plan to strengthen their presence in that country.”Also, in a political climate where Washington must meet challenges posed by a resurgent Russia
and bellicose Iran over the crisis in Syria, it seems the Armenian
lobby is ready to challenge any U.S. policy move to alter the Obama’s
administration’s “Iran deal.”Mr.
Galstyan further stated of his activist colleagues, “Undoubtedly,
leaders of the Democratic Party will mobilize all resources to prevent
cancellation of the signed agreement and new package of sanctions
against Tehran. Meantime, that confrontation on the Iranian issue in
Congress serves the interests of Armenia
and the ‘Nagorno Karabakh Republic,’ since the uncertainty of American
policy in the Iranian direction detracts from the prospect of
rapprochement between Washington and Baku.”However indirectly, the Armenian-American lobby is, in fact, lobbying Congress and the administration on behalf of Russia and attempting to influence American foreign policy for Russia’s benefit. The White House and Congress must see Armenia and its surrogates in Washington through lenses unclouded by campaign funding and even constituencies. Military and foreign aid to Armenia and checking off Armenia in the friend category is dangerous to American national interests. The only answer is a shift in policy, one that takes a hard line on Russia, as in the postwar period and concurrently seeks a free and independent Armenia, living within its own borders and one not at war with its neighbors.•
Alexander Murinson, a senior fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center and Bar
Ilan University, is the author of “Turkey’s Entente with Israel and
Azerbaijan: State Identity and Security in the Middle East and Caucasus”
(Routledge, 2009).

U.S. diplomats concluded in late 2008 that the government of Armenia had supplied Iran with rockets and machine guns later used to kill American troops in Iraq, according to State Department cables disclosed by WikiLeaks.John D. Negroponte, deputy secretary of state at the time, wrote a December 2008 letter to Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan expressing “deep concerns about Armenia’s transfer of arms to Iran which resulted in the death and injury of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.”The cable, based on U.S. intelligence, includes the text of a classified letter labeled “secret” from Mr. Negroponte. It says “in 2007 some of these weapons were recovered from two Shia militant attacks in which a U.S. soldier was killed and six others were injured in Iraq.” The disclosure of the re-export of arms by Armenia is one example of how the leaked archive of U.S. diplomatic traffic totaling more than 250,000 reports reveals an extensive U.S. government effort to stop allies and adversaries alike from arming Iran with even conventional weapons.In Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday that the documents made public by WikiLeaks is part of a campaign by the CIA and the Israeli Mossad. While many cables showed heads of Arab states urging the United States to take military action against Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad dismissed them as propaganda. “The countries in the region are like friends and brothers,” he said. “These acts of mischief will not affect their relations.”Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Washington that the leaks will not affect U.S. relationships with allies. Yet she also said that the disclosures would endanger people in closed societies who had spoken with U.S. diplomats.“There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends,” Mrs. Clinton said. Mrs. Clinton said WikiLeaks acted illegally in posting the classified document and that the Obama administration is taking “aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information.”At the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the government had launched a criminal probe, while Pentagon officials said security is being tightened to better control digital storage devices such as CDs and flash drives. The Armenian incident was part of a wider U.S. effort to block Iran’s access to the global arms and weapons technology market. For example, a 2010 cable revealed covert U.S. efforts to persuade China’s government to block a sale from a Malaysian firm, Electronics Component Ltd., to sell gyroscopes to an Iranian front company.The cables also show U.S. diplomatic efforts to stop German sales of high-technology equipment to Iranian front companies and block conventional arms sales from Turkey to Iran. Both countries are NATO allies. In some cases though, the cables show the inefficacy of the American effort. North Korea, according to one cable in 2007, successfully shipped missile components to Iran despite U.S. efforts to seek Chinese help in blocking the transfer.“This shows the breadth of the U.S. effort to quietly shut down all the various spigots and channels that the United States was using to bleed the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Kenneth Katzman, an Iran specialist at the Congressional Research Service. “We have seen a recent example in Nigeria of arms pipelines being exposed, these cables show more of a sweep to it than most Americans were aware of, which is usually limited to public discussion of U.N. sanctions votes.”Mr. Katzman said the worldwide U.S. effort reminded him of Operation Staunch in the 1980s. “It hearkens back to U.S. efforts during the Iran-Iraq war to prevent conventional arms deliveries to Iran, which had a degree of success but was not a complete hermetic seal,” he said.The disclosures about Armenian government links to Iran arms supplies are surprising. Armenia has drawn closer to the United States in recent years as the United States has sought to quietly broker Armenia’s disputes with Turkey and Azerbaijan. A Western diplomat familiar with the incident said the United States had multiple streams of intelligence connecting the Armenian arms shipment to Iran with the deaths of U.S. soldiers in 2007 in Iraq.When Mr. Sargsyan was first confronted with this intelligence in 2008 on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he denied knowing anything about the matter, the cable says. Mr. Negroponte, however, lays out the consequences to Armenia in the letter.“Notwithstanding the close relationship between our countries, neither the Administration nor the U.S. Congress can overlook this case,” Mr. Negroponte said in his letter to the Armenian president.“By law, the transfer of these weapons requires us to consider whether there is a basis for the imposition of U.S. sanctions. If sanctions are imposed, penalties could include the cutoff of U.S. assistance and certain export restrictions,” he said.After leveling the threat, Mr. Negroponte told Mr. Sargsyan that in order to avoid sanctions he had to provide a written assurance to the United States that Armenia would update its export-control laws, establish teams of customs specialists at the border to check for contraband and dual-use exports and allow U.S. spot inspections of these checkpoints and make public its export-control lists.The Armenians appear to have agreed to these measures as the United States never leveled any sanctions against Mr. Sargsyan’s government. The Armenian Embassy declined to comment for this article.A December 2009 cable revealed that U.S. intelligence in June 2009 uncovered two Iranian front companies that offered to sell missile test equipment manufactured by the German firms Rohde & Schwarz and Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik (HBM) to Iran’s main developer of liquid-fueled ballistic missiles, the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group.“We want to share this new information with German officials and encourage them to continue their efforts to prevent SHIG or other Iranian entities of proliferation concern from procuring sensitive items from Rohde & Schwarz and HBM,” the cable said.A March 2009 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, stated that a network of Iranians had been identified in the Azerbaijani capital who were engaged in illicit activities.“Some [of the Iranians] are also said to be significant actors in obtaining spare parts and equipment for the Revolutionary Guard, raising revenues and managing money for it and/or regime figures, or managing Iran-origin narcotics trafficking,” the cable said.

In an increasingly polarized world, the small Caspian Sea nation of Azerbaijan is a tantalizing study in contradictions. It’s a staunch American ally sandwiched between the U.S. nemeses of Iran and Russia, providing a critical transit for U.S. troops and supplies in and out of Afghanistan. Yet most Americans probably can’t spell the country’s name on first chance or pinpoint its location on a map.

It’s
also a Shiite Muslim country that rejects the theocracy of Tehran in
favor of a secular government while expanding its already friendly
relationship with Israel. It’s
also a former Soviet republic that has cast off the shackles of its
once socialist economy to experience significant growth around its
booming oil industry. All that makes Wednesday’s election in Azerbaijan of keen interest to U.S. diplomatic, intelligence and military circles even though there’s little suspense: President Ilham Aliyev is widely expected to win his third five-year term.

“It is the only country that borders both Russia and Iran. Therefore, it becomes a pivotal state when it comes to issues such as containment of Iran, as well as access for Americans, not only into the Caucasus, but also into Central Asia,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “If Azerbaijan
weren’t resource-rich and if it didn’t have the geopolitical position
it has, I don’t imagine that so many Americans would be increasingly
interested in the former Soviet republic.”

The U.S.-Azerbaijani relationship is based on cooperation in several areas, including regional security and energy. Azerbaijan has supplied troops to work with U.S. forces in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 1988, Azerbaijan has been mired in a conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, a primarily Armenian-populated landlocked region in Azerbaijan that is held by ethnic Armenian forces and unilaterally declared itself an independent republic in 1991. While Armenia, once a powerful lobby in Washington, has embraced Russia, Azerbaijan has leaned toward the West. “There is a sense that if Azerbaijan changes its orientation, American influence will be checkmated in the region,” Mr. Rubin said. “Political stability in Azerbaijan is to the benefit of America’s strategic interests.”

Crackdown on the opposition

Those interests have left the Obama administration to wrestle with concerns about what critics say is Azerbaijan’s
authoritarian rule. A monthslong crackdown on political opposition and a
clampdown on freedoms of expression and assembly has concerned some
human rights groups. The National Assembly has passed measures that increase prison sentences and fines for public-order offenses. In June, Mr. Aliyev signed legislation that criminalizes defamatory views posted on the Internet and allows prison sentences of up to three years.

“The government has had a poor human rights record for a while, but for the past year and a half, we have seen a change for the worse,” Mr. Gogia said. “The government is tightening the screws. Little by little, the islands of freedom are disappearing.”

Azerbaijani
officials brush off the criticisms, pointing to their strong support of
American interests in the region and their friendly relations with Israel. The Obama administration is monitoring developments in Azerbaijan,
straddling a careful line of embracing an ally in a critical region
while prodding it behind closed doors and in public to enhance freedoms. On July 16, Thomas Melia, deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, testified before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, at a hearing titled “Troubled Partner: Growing Authoritarianism in Azerbaijan.”

The
“political environment for human rights and fundamental freedoms more
broadly has worsened since at least last November, when the [national
assembly] passed amendments significantly increasing fines on
participants and organizers of unauthorized protests,” Mr. Melia told the panel. In September, the Aliyev government barred a delegation led by Mr. Melia from traveling to Azerbaijan to observe preparations for the presidential election.

“We
will continue to urge respect for fundamental freedoms and the rule of
law, including due process before, during and after the presidential
contest,” a U.S. official said, speaking only on the condition of
anonymity. The official said the administration has called on Azerbaijan to ensure “a free, fair, and transparent electoral process that reflects the will of the people.”

‘We are not perfect’

Azerbaijan’s leadership bristles at suggestions it is unfriendly to freedom. At the Helsinki Commission
hearing in July, for instance, the Azerbaijani ambassador to the United
States took strong exception to his president being labeled
authoritarian.

“I respectfully reject the wrongful claim about going to authoritarianism in Azerbaijan,” Ambassador Elin Suleymanov said. “We do not accept that. What is going on in Azerbaijan is a truly independent nation with a vibrant political system and a free-market economy.” He conceded that there is room for improvement: “Just like every nation on Earth, we are not perfect.”

Azerbaijan won independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991. In 1993, Mr. Aliyev’s father, Heydar Aliyev, was elected president. A decade later, in October 2003, the younger Mr. Aliyev was elected to succeed his ailing father. He
inherited a nation on the cusp of major oil revenues and plagued by
corruption. In the ensuing years, the economy improved, and with it, the
standard of living.

“Hopes were quite high when Mr. Aliyev came to power,” Mr. Gogia
said. “Here was an energetic, young leader who could modernize the
country. But these hopes wound down quite soon after he came to power.”

The
pro-democracy Arab Spring protests that have embroiled parts of the
Middle East and North Africa and toppled dictators since 2010 appear to
have spooked the Aliyev government, especially as it related to social media. The Azerbaijani government
has imprisoned youth activists with large numbers of followers on
social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. More than half a dozen
activists from NIDA, a youth opposition movement active on social media
and critical of the government, have been arrested. The
opposition claims it has been hamstrung by such tactics, especially in a
country where broadcast media are still controlled by the government.

Stability versus democracy

Besides Mr. Aliyev,
51, there are nine registered presidential candidates. The opposition’s
main candidate, Jamil Hasanli, is a historian who represents the
National Council of Democratic Forces, a coalition of opposition parties
and groups. Oscar-winning screenwriter Rustam Ibragimbekov was
the National Council’s original candidate, but election officials
rejected his candidacy on the grounds that he is a dual citizen of Azerbaijan and Russia.

Another
presidential aspirant, Ilgar Mammadov, was arrested in February on
charges of instigating civil unrest and has been awaiting trial in
prison. Its human rights record aside, Azerbaijan has plenty of advocates inside the United States, including former Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican who wrote in a Washington Times op-ed last month that America must be patient with its Caspian ally.

“I know that Azerbaijan is not perfect. The Azerbaijani government is often criticized over its human rights record,” Mr. Burton wrote. “However, considering that Azerbaijan
— like other former Soviet republics — has scant experience with
democracy, its human rights record is better than most. In fact, Azerbaijan’s religious tolerance, inclusiveness and protection of women’s rights should be recognized.”

Mr. Burton is chairman of the board of the Azerbaijan America Alliance, which promotes Azerbaijan’s interests in the U.S. Mr. Burton also stressed Azerbaijan’s increasing ties with Israel. Azerbaijan’s bilateral trade with Israel reached $4 billion last year and about 40 percent of Israel’s oil imports come from Azerbaijan, he noted. And when Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov visited Israel in May, Israeli President Shimon Peres described the trip as historic, Mr. Mammadyarov
was also the only Muslim foreign minister to address the 2013 American
Jewish Committee Global Forum in Washington. Others see an evolution of a
Soviet republic seeking stability and economic prosperity first before
freedom can be achieved.

“I am not one who would say that Aliyev is a democrat. He is not,” said Mr. Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, who visited Azerbaijan in June. “While the negative side of Aliyev has been the lack of full democratization, the positive side has been the development of the economy.

“One of the reasons why I am willing to cut Aliyev some slack is because I don’t believe a stable democracy is possible in Azerbaijan without a larger middle class and it seems Aliyev’s plan is to build up that middle class first,” Mr. Rubin
explained. “So while I believe in reforms, I also believe that we need
to time those reforms properly; otherwise, we throw the baby out with
the bathwater.”

Did
Armenia and Azerbaijan make war in early June to promote peace? Some
analysts believe the recent sharp escalation of violence along the
Nagorno-Karabakh contact line was specifically intended to get
international mediators’ attention.

Political
experts in both countries say US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton’s June 4-6 visit to the South Caucasus was the catalyst for the
bloodiest fighting around
Karabakh in recent memory. Azerbaijan claimed to lose six soldiers and
Armenia four. The two countries signed a ceasefire in 1994, ending six
years of conflict over the Karabakh enclave. The two armies have
continued to snipe at each other for the past two decades, as
negotiations on a lasting political settlement remain stalemated.

The
escalation turned the 24-year Karabakh conflict into the main topic of
public interest during the US secretary of state’s visits to Yerevan
and Baku, with residents on both sides at times swept up by rumors
about an impending resumption of all-out warfare.

Analysts
in Baku maintain that the flare-up in fighting during Clinton’s tour
was not a mere coincidence, but a "message" to Washington that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not frozen and that greater American
attention to the problem is needed. "Clinton was shown [by both sides]
that it is an unresolved conflict and could escalate at any time," said
independent military expert Jasur Sumarinly.

Azerbaijan,
in particular, has one strong reason for generating more American
input in the peace process: Russia. Officials in Baku are skeptical
that Russian President Vladimir Putin is interested in continuing the
active mediation efforts that his predecessor, Dmitri Medvedev,
undertook to narrow the gap separating Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, Azerbaijani analysts say.

“Vladimir
Putin was never interested in this conflict, and I do not think it
will change,” commented Vafa Guluzade, a former senior foreign policy
aide to the late Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev. “Plus, there are
reasons to believe that Putin’s position will be pro-Armenian.
Therefore, Baku needs more US involvement in the process.”

Russia’s
military ties to Armenia underline that impression. On June 10,
Interfax news agency reported that Russian fighter jets had increased
by 20 percent their training missions over Armenian airspace. In
addition, Russia keeps thousands of troops stationed in the northern
Armenian town of Gyumri
and also monitors the country’s borders. Sumarinli believes that the
flights indicate that Russia is trying to show Azerbaijan that Armenia
will not be alone if war in Karabakh resumes. “It puts Baku into a
difficult situation,” he said.

Difficult,
maybe: but Baku still feels it can push back against Moscow. In what
was perceived as a jab at the Kremlin, Azerbaijani Deputy Prime
Minister Ali Hasanov drily commented on June 8 that “probably some
countries which patronize Armenia were not happy with the visit of the
US secretary of state and organized” the cease-fire violations,
Azerbaijani news outlets reported. The Karabakh peace process is guided
by the OSCE Minsk group, which comprises representatives from the
United States, Russia and France. Diplomats from all three states
expressed concern about the early June outbreak of violence.

Analysts
in Armenia agree that the cease-fire violations occurred because of
Clinton’s presence in the region, though they attribute the outburst of
violence to Azerbaijan alone. “The incidents at the frontline were the
Azerbaijani government’s action to demonstrate their disagreement with
the status quo,” asserted military expert Sergei Minasian, deputy head
of the Yerevan-based Caucasus Institute’s Political Studies
Department. Armenian forces continue to occupy approximately 20 percent
of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory, in addition to
controlling Karabakh proper.

For
Yerevan, Russia’s involvement in the conflict resolution process is
much more important than that of the United States, Minasian continued.
“Taking into account the fact that Russia and Armenia are military
allies and members of the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty
Organization], Russia … unlike the United States, may have a restraining
role in this matter, which is preferable for Armenia.”

Baku
political analyst Elhan Shahinoglu is doubtful that the recent
ceasefire violations will lead to bolder US involvement in the peace
process. "Obama's administration has never paid much attention to the
Karabakh problem,” said Shahinoglu, who heads Baku’s Atlas Research
Center. “I do not think it will change if Obama is re-elected this
year.” Secretary of State Clinton stated in Baku that new proposals for a
Karabakh settlement would be presented at a June 18 meeting in Paris
between Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian and Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov.

Analysts
in both countries scoff at the notion that the existing deadlock in
negotiations will be broken any time soon. “We can expect no miracle,”
commented independent political analyst Yerevand Bozoian. “Armenians
and Azerbaijanis have different visions for the Karabakh conflict
settlement. … In fact, this issue has no resolution, whatever proposal
may be put forward."

Should the United States chastise or even break with Azerbaijan? One
congressman thinks so, given its troubling authoritarian policies,
alleged human rights violations, egregious electoral fraud, jailing of investigative journalists and torture of political prisoners. In December, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), introduced legislation that would deny U.S. visas to senior Azerbaijani officials.
Such a policy would be a break with the past U.S. relationship with the
former Soviet republic, bordered by Armenia to the west and the Caspian
Sea to the east.

But Smith’s legislation is unlikely to pass.
Despite the country’s human rights record, the United States has
cooperated closely with Azerbaijan, both economically and on security. The European Stability Initiative
argues that the West’s soft stance towards Azerbaijan is the result of
President Ilham Aliyev’s “caviar diplomacy.” The ESI reported that
Aliyev’s offerings of free travel and lavish gifts entice Western elites into ignoring his government’s repression.

Such
patronage might have an impact. But the close U.S.-Azerbaijan
partnership can be better explained by three major strategic factors:
Azerbaijan’s significance as an energy transit point linking Central
Asia to Europe; Aliyev’s resistance to Russian sovereignty violations in
Georgia and Ukraine; and Azerbaijan’s solidarity with the United States
against both terrorism and Shiite radicalization.

Azerbaijan is important to the energy trade between central Asia and Europe

Azerbaijan
has extensive offshore oil reserves on the Caspian Sea and is an
important link in the energy trade between central Asia and Europe.
Baku, the nation’s capital, is where the region’s second largest oil pipeline starts, transporting Azerbaijan’s oil through Georgia to Turkey. U.S.
companies have invested substantially in developing the oil and natural
gas industry in the Caspian Sea. Both the Bush and Obama
administrations have treated the stable and expanded flow of energy from
this region as vital to America’s geopolitical interests. That’s
because a stable Caspian Sea energy trade dilutes Europe’s dependence on Russian gas and restricts Iranian influence, thereby strengthening U.S. allies relative to its long-standing adversaries.

In 2008, the Republican Senator Richard Lugar, then head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee described Azerbaijan as America’s sole friend
on the Caspian basin, a friend valuable as an oil supplier to U.S.
allies. Lugar said this during an official trip to Baku to strengthen
the burgeoning U.S.-Azerbaijan energy partnership. Lugar also expressed
the need for the U.S. to appoint a special representative tasked with preserving long-term American interests in the Caspian Sea. Azerbaijan
would become an even more important player in the global energy trade
if Turkmenistan manages to build its proposed Trans-Caspian Gas
pipeline. This pipeline would link Turkmenistan, which holds the world’s fourth largest natural gas reserves, to the European Union, placing Baku at the center of the energy transit network.

Azerbaijan has also encouraged the Obama administration to invest in a $45 billion pipeline that bypasses Russia by connecting Azerbaijani gas shipments to Italy. In
response to increased Western interest in Azerbaijan, Aliyev has since
2004 rhetorically supported Azerbaijan’s increasing integration with
Europe. Azerbaijan has been part of negotiations
to forge an association agreement with the European Union, a treaty
that would expand political, trade, cultural and security cooperation
with Azerbaijan, a non-E.U. member state.

The prospect of
Azerbaijan supplying more and more of Europe’s oil is more enticing than
those gifts and trips. Azerbaijan’s energy supplies could also help
erode Russia’s power over western Europe. That’s one reason the EU and
U.S. have been cautious about criticizing the country’s poor human
rights record.

Azerbaijan opposes Russian military ventures into its neighbors’ territory

For
much of the post-Soviet period, Azerbaijan has carefully balanced its
foreign policy between Russia and the West. Despite occasional periods
of tension — as when Azerbaijan cut off oil exports
to Russia over a Gazprom pricing dispute — Azerbaijan and Russia have
increased trade under Putin. The Aliyev regime has emphasized protecting
ethnic Russians from discrimination in Azerbaijan and expressed
solidarity with Russia’s military activities in Chechnya. In 2011, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev declared that the people of Russia and Azerbaijan are tied together with the “closest friendship and trust links.”

But
that’s all on the surface. Historically, Azerbaijan has been skeptical
of Russia’s neo-imperial ventures. Animosity increased further after the
Soviets used military force against Azerbaijani nationalists in January 1990, to prevent the Communist regime from being overthrown by mass protests and to stop violence against ethnic Armenians. In addition, Russia has offered military support to Armenia in
its conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, an unrecognized
land-locked republic on the borders of the two countries. That’s soured
relations as well. And while Azerbaijan may be making an effort to
protect ethnic Russians, Russian discrimination against its Azerbaijani population remains a significant problem.

All this became prominent during the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia.When Russia
annexed the Georgian-held autonomous territory of South Ossetia,
Azerbaijan’s elites were alarmed by Russia’s willingness to violate
international law and by the West’s tepid response. Within Azerbaijan,
public approval of the country’s diplomatic ties with Russia
deteriorated sharply from 80 percent in 2007 to 52 percent after the
war.

Azerbaijanis had a similar reaction to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. At first, the Aliyev regime hesitated to support the pro-democracy Maidan
revolution in Ukraine, which overthrew Russian-allied president Viktor
Yanukovych and led to a pro-EU Ukrainian government. But once Russia
moved into Eastern Ukraine, public opinion in Azerbaijan swiftly swung
against Putin, seeing the invasion as similar to Armenia’s incursions in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan’s refusal to join the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU)
in favor of pursuing closer economic ties with the West took its
long-standing balancing act between Europe and Russia to a new level.

Azerbaijan
refused to impose sanctions against Georgia and Ukraine after Russia
annexed their territory, despite Russia’s urgings. For Western
countries, that made it more appealing as a strategic partner. Western
countries seeking allies in the post-Soviet region have had few
choices. Armenia is a staunch Russian ally. Georgia’s sovereignty has
been undermined by Russia’s incursions at its border. And so the United
States and NATO have expanded military cooperation with Azerbaijan, especially in the Special Forces and navy, to maintain a foothold in the Caucasus. And
so here too, Western policymakers worry that humanitarian sanctions
could cause Azerbaijan to pivot towards Russia to guarantee its
security.

Azerbaijan works with the West against terrorism. The West approves

Since
9/11, Azerbaijan has cooperated with the United States on
counterterrorism efforts. Many U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East
opposed the 2003 Iraq War — but Azerbaijan opened its airspace for U.S. planes working to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime. And Azerbaijan was a transit hub for more than one-third of the fuel, food and clothing used by U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan. Azerbaijan has also helped preempt a major terrorist attack against the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Baku in 2012 by arresting 22 Azerbaijanis for alleged cooperation with Sepah,
an Iranian terror group. Azerbaijan is a Shia majority state ruled by a
secular regime. Aliyev helps out against terrorism in part because he
wants to weaken Islamist movements that could undermine his power.

In particular, the Aliyev regime has targeted pro-Iranian Shiites,
who have opposed the Azerbaijan’s increasingly cordial ties with Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait- making it a natural partner for the U.S.’s efforts
along the same lines. Azerbaijan is also working against the Islamic State. After hundreds of Azerbaijani jihadists defected to Iraq and Syria to fight for ISIS, Aliyev vigorously repressed Salafist movements, which have criticized the Azerbaijan regime for its secularism and corruption. Azerbaijan
is the U.S.’s only partner against ISIS in the Caspian Sea basin, which
due to its close proximity to Iran is a potential hotbed for terrorism.
That too, makes the U.S. reluctant to alienate Aliyev.

In
short, America’s reluctance to take action against the Aliyev regime
can be explained by Azerbaijan’s cooperation with U.S. strategic
objectives. Bringing in energy, combating ISIS and other Islamist
terrorism and thwarting Russian aggression are urgent concerns for U.S.
policymakers. Human rights aren’t.Smith’s Azerbaijan Democracy Act will have a rough time getting a serious hearing in Congress.

Samuel
Ramani is an MPhil Student in Russian and East European Studies at St.
Antony’s College, University of Oxford, specializing in post-1991
Russian foreign policy.

The September 4, 2014 postby
Mark Dietzen is a classic case of an attempt to obfuscate the origins
of Armenian aggression and the occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region
of Azerbaijan. What we see is a narrative that is fundamentally
deficient.

To begin with, let us be clear about the basics of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Armenia is the aggressor, having illegally
occupied 16 percent of Azerbaijan, including Nagorno-Karabakh and seven
adjacent districts, and having ethnically cleansed 800,000 innocent
Azerbaijanis. Do not take my word for it – there are four UN Security
Council resolutions, 822, 853, 874 and 884, to back this up.

Those
who thought such disregard for international law by Armenia would not
have repercussions throughout the former Soviet Union were obviously
mistaken. Case in point: Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. And
now there is Ukraine, which recently lost Crimea (where “separatists”
also first illegally declared “independence”), and is now losing two
large swaths of territory on its east to puppet “separatists” of the
“Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR)” and “Lugansk People's Republic
(LPR).” The striking similarity of these puppet regimes and the
so-called “Nagorno-Karabakh republic” project comes as little surprise.
In essence, the script of Russian-sponsored separatism has been the same
over the past two decades – tactics and operations change and adjust,
but overarching strategy is permanent chaos and dependence on Russia.

The
claim that military threats supposedly emanated from Azerbaijan against
Armenia, constitutes reckless disregard for the truth. In reality, the
Armenian leadership, especially the military brass, has been making
grave threats against Azerbaijan for many years. That is, history does not start on August 8, 2014, as Dietzen claims.

Thus, the record is rife with unprovoked aggressive military threats
by top Armenian officials against Azerbaijan. Being protected
and continually supplied
by the Russian army emboldens Armenia to make threats, commit acts of
aggression and prolong the occupation of Azerbaijani lands.

My article
was clear as to how Armenia violated, inter alia, the Missile
Technology Control Regime: “Armenia and Sargsyan have made a laughing
stock out of the MTCR and the HCOC by illegally receiving SCUD-B and
potentially Iskander-M (SS-26 Stone) short-range ballistic missiles
(SRBM) from Russia, an MTCR signatory.” Thus, while Armenia is not a
signatory to the MTCR, Russia, the allied supplier, is.

Meanwhile,
Armenia subscribed to The Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic
Missile Proliferation (HCOC) in 2004, but never came into full
compliance, having continually faltered on making the required
disclosures and declarations. The HCOC Executive Secretariat does not
have Armenia’s annual declarations and pre-launch notifications, nor do
media.

Section 907, which prevented U.S. Congress from also allocating any military/security aid to Armenia, has been waived since
2002, and since then Azerbaijan has purchased and received U.S. military equipment, from Humvee’s to patrol boats and radars. As of this moment several U.S. defense firms are in Baku attending the ADEX 2014 military exhibition.

When the Armenian side accuses Azerbaijan of CFE Treaty violations, they cite a State
Department report
that clearly points the blame at Armenia. Aside from Armenia violating
the CFE Treaty on its own territory (“An inspection conducted by Denmark
at Yeghvard, Armenia, June 4-7, 2012, observed TLE – almost 60 battle
tanks, over 50 armored infantry fighting vehicles, and about 120 APCs –
not assigned to this site”), it continues to violate it on Azerbaijani
territory: “Armenia continues to station troops and CFE limited
equipment on the territory of Azerbaijan without Azerbaijani
permission”. In other words, Armenia’s continuing illegal occupation of
Azerbaijan has a negative effect on the latter’s quota and compliance
with CFE. But Armenian lobby is historically able to divert attention in the Congress.

No amount of Armenian lobbying in the U.S. Congress, or its double-dealings with Russia and Iran,
can ignore the simple fact that Armenia is an aggressor nation that
continues to occupy Azerbaijan, and constitutes a belligerent threat to
peace and security in the entire former USSR. Allowing Armenia to get
away with aggression and the occupation of Azerbaijan has facilitated
destabilizing events to unfold in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and could
carry similar repercussions for Kazakhstan and the Baltic states.

A group of more than
40 high-level former White House officials, members of Congress and
state officials traveled this week to Azerbaijan for a convention
sponsored by top energy companies.

Former White House deputy chief of staff and Obama 2012 campaign
manager Jim Messina, former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and
former Obama senior adviser David Plouffe all gave speeches at the
two-day event in Baku, according to the schedule on the conference website. Vice President Joe Biden’s sister Valerie Biden Owens was also listed as a speaker on women’s rights issues.

A representative of the Turquoise Council of Americans &
Eurasians — a Houston-based nonprofit that is listed as the event
organizer — did not return multiple requests for comment on whether the
speeches were paid. The Washington Post reported Thursday that the
speakers all received five-figure checks. A
person familiar with the speeches said that Gibbs, Plouffe, and Messina
all mentioned human rights in their remarks. Corporate sponsors for the
event include major energy companies BP,
the Caspian Drilling Company, KBR, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and others.

Offices for the sitting members of Congress either declined to comment or did not respond to a request for comment. Bridenstine’s office would not even confirm the congressman’s
attendance, citing security reasons, despite his name appearing on the
online schedule.“Well, there are lots of things on different websites,” Bridenstine spokeswoman Sheryl Kaufman told POLITICO.

State level officials from across the country — including the
secretaries of state from California, Wisconsin, and Arkansas — are also
on the schedule.The White House and Vice President Joe Biden’s office declined to
comment. Plouffe, Gibbs and Messina did not immediately respond to
requests for comment or declined to comment. It’s not the first time that former Obama administration officials
have appeared in the oil rich nation that has been roundly criticized by
human rights groups in recent years.

In between his stint as 2008 Obama campaign manager and top White House official, Plouffe was paid $50,000 to speak at a 2009 event and met with government officials. He later donated the funds to a pro-democracy charity after an outcry from human rights groups and the American Armenian lobby. The two countries, whose history of bad blood spans decades, have
been locked in a tense territorial dispute since a 1994 cease-fire ended
a six-year war that killed upwards of 25,000 people. The sparring
neighbors are both strategically important U.S. allies.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland in
February restated the U.S. desire for a peaceful settlement. “Let me
simply say that the tragic loss of life in the war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan reminds us that there cannot be a military solution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” Nuland said. “Only a lasting and peaceful
settlement can bring about stability, prosperity, and reconciliation in
the region.”

Representatives of Azerbaijan — which has retained several high
profile D.C. lobbying and consulting firms including the Podesta Group,
Tool Shed Group and Potomac Square Group — defended the conference as an
exercise in relationship building between Baku and Washington.

“This was the second time we are having the convention. It’s a very
nice exercise. We’re proud of the fact that we can do it. It’s very
positive for both countries,” Mammad Talibov, a counselor at the
Azerbaijan embassy in Washington D.C., told POLITICO. An embassy spokesman also added that Azerbaijan is working with
international organizations and has implemented measures to improve the
protection of human rights. “The government of Azerbaijan is committed to building a free,
democratic and secular society despite the challenges imposed by the
region’s difficult geopolitical environment,” the spokesman said.

American Armenian groups, who are a major lobbying and political
force in the nation’s capital, are particularly upset about U.S.
policymakers — current and former — traveling to a country that they say
tends towards authoritarianism and does not respect human rights.

Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev “has made a multimillion-dollar
industry of recruiting current and former U.S. officials to give show
speeches in Azerbaijan, in the hopes, it seems, that these high-priced
dog-and-pony shows will somehow provide him with political cover against
increasing vocal challenges by the U.S. government and human rights
groups against his regime’s corrupt and undemocratic practices,” said
Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of
America.

The Turquoise Council, an American Turkish nonprofit organization,
has previously been tied to a number of Texas nonprofits, companies and
charter school operators to the followers of Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic
Turkish preacher whose followers have created a movement in his name,
according to a 2011 investigative piece by The New York Times.

Kemal Oksuz, the president of the Turquoise Council, is also the
co-owner of a major Texas construction firm TDM Contracting that won
millions of dollars in public contracts within months of its founding,
the Times reported. That firm was tied to a network of Turkish-run
Islamic charter schools, operated on the public dime.

Who Is Shushing State on Azerbaijan's Detention of Khadija Ismayilova?

When the American ambassador to oil-rich Azerbaijan opened a
veterinary laboratory in the small town of Goygol earlier this year, the
U.S. embassy put out a press release
to commemorate the landmark event. When Azerbaijan's government
detained the country's most prominent investigative journalist earlier
this month, barely a whisper was heard from America's diplomats.

Khadija
Ismayilova, whose investigations into corruption cases involving the
ruling family of the Caspian nation have won her an award for 'Courage in Journalism', has faced persecution by the authorities before, most notoriously when they tried to blackmail her by secretly filming her having sex
and threatening to post the footage online. (She refused to back down,
and the footage was promptly released onto the Internet.) In what a recent Washington Post editorial
called "the latest example of how Azerbaijan has become a bleak
dystopia for human rights and democracy", she was locked away on the
Kafka-esque charge of "incitement to commit suicide."

According to data released earlier this month by the Committee to Protect Journalists, Azerbaijan is the second-worst persecutor of journalists worldwide.
On a per capita basis, it jails over twice as many journalists as Iran
does, and 28 times as many as get locked away in China, leading one
observer to dub the forthcoming 2015 European Games in Baku the "Gulag
Games'.

The Council of Europe's Secretary General promptly called for her immediate release.
A representative of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, an outfit generally known for couching any criticism in cautious
diplo-speak, bluntly condemned the move
as "nothing but orchestrated intimidation, which is a part of the
ongoing campaign aimed at silencing her free and critical voice."
Amnesty International denounced the charge as politically motivated, adding that:

Dissenting
voices in the country frequently face trumped-up criminal charges,
assault, harassment, blackmail and other reprisals from the authorities
and groups associated with them. Law enforcement officials regularly
resort to torture and other ill-treatment of civil society activists,
with impunity.

While fellow journalists have launched a dedicated 'Free Khadija Ismayilova' campaign that is gaining strong traction on Twitter,
America's diplomats have been keeping a conspicuously low profile. When
I contacted the U.S. State Department asking about formal statements
made in Ismayilova's defence, a press officer could only provide me with
a single item, the transcript of the December 10th session of State's
daily media briefing.On that occasion, a reporter asked about Ismayilova's case, and a State Department spokesperson explained that:

"[W]e're
very concerned by the arrest and pretrial detention of Azerbaijani
journalist Khadija Ismayilova. We're deeply troubled by increased
restrictions on civil society activities, including on journalists, in
Azerbaijan. We are increasingly concerned that the government is not
living up to its international human rights commitments and obligations.
We urge the Government of Azerbaijan to respect the universal rights of
its citizens and allow them to freely express their views. Azerbaijan
will be best able to ensure its future stability and prosperity by
allowing a more open society. We have, of course, raised the increased
restrictions on civil society and freedom of press at multiple levels in
both Washington and abroad with the Government of Azerbaijan officials.
I don't have anything specific as it relates to this individual case."

One
week later, Tom Malinowski, the Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, also commented on Azerbaijan's
tightening of the screws. During a brief interview,
he spoke of "very serious discussions at high levels" and warned that
the country's "crackdown on civil society" was jeopardizing its
bilateral relationship with the United States. However, he did not specifically refer to Ismayilova's case. Why
are America's diplomats not speaking out loudly and clearly on Khadija
Ismayilova's behalf? Why has the State Department not joined Europe's
diplomats in publicly demanding her immediate release from jail?

One
possible explanation is that many former U.S. diplomats now have close
financial ties to Azerbaijan. For example, former ambassador to
Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza today sits on the board of AzMeCo,
an Azerbaijani company working in the oil and gas sector. He seems to
have switched effortlessly from representing Washington's interests in
Azerbaijan's capital Baku to representing Baku's interests in D.C. For
example, following Azerbaijan's farcical presidential elections of 2013, Bryza -- identifying himself only as a former diplomat and Atlantic Council think tanker -- wrote in an op-ed that "a reformist wind may be blowing" and that "positive changes are underway."

Challenged about his commercial ties in the petro-dictatorship famously lampooned as 'Absurdistan', Bryza told the Huffington Post
that much of his time as ambassador had been spent on human rights
issues, including "trying to get journalists out of jail." Apparently,
he managed to do so without alienating his host government. In 2011, he
was presented with the Leadership Award
of a D.C.-based Azerbaijani lobby group, the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of
Commerce (USACC), for "exceptional leadership in promoting the
development of bilateral relations between the United States and
Azerbaijan."

Bryza is not the first U.S. ambassador to walk
through the revolving door after his Baku posting. One of his
predecessors, Stanley Escudero, did exactly the same thing,
and is busily doing business in Baku to this day. And sharing a place
with Bryza on USACC's diplomatic roll of honor is former U.S. Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who used to be co-director
of the lobbying group. While still in office, Armitage described
Azerbaijan's late dictator -- and father of the present dictator --
Heydar Aliyev as "a man greater than the life itself".

It
remains unclear to what extent the State Department's near silence on
Khadija Ismayilova's detention is due to string-pulling behind the
scenes by former diplomats who now have financial ties with Baku's
regime and thus a vested interest in discouraging any rocking of the
bilateral boat. Indeed, Azerbaijan's frequent junkets
for top U.S. decision-makers might may play an even greater role. "The
direct money to politicians in trips and gifts matter more. Azerbaijan
gives visiting VIP politicians diamond encrusted watches and other nice
baubles which they don't report," commented an observer of the region
who asked not to be named.

As Khadija Ismayilova begins her third
week in jail, her supporters will be watching closely to see whether any
of the American politicos who took part in an especially controversial junket to Baku will now re-wrap their gifts and speak up on her behalf.

Tensions between Azerbaijan and neighboring Armenia
on the fate of the Nagorno-Karabakh region are reaching dangerous
levels. In the past year, the Azeri enclave in the South Caucasus, which
Armenia
has occupied since 1992, has been the focus of increased violence. Just
last month, six people were killed in an exchange of fire across the
temporary line that separates the two sides. Prospects of another war in
the Caspian Sea region are real. But as the rhetoric heats up, little
is heard from Washington. Azerbaijan, America's closest ally in the region, deserves more direct and concrete support from the Obama administration.

Pinned between Iran and Russia
on the ancient Silk Road bridging Europe and Asia, this former Soviet
republic is an indispensable strategic partner. It is known mostly for
its very significant oil and natural gas reserves, but it also is
becoming a decisively vital source of support for Washington's push to
end the Afghanistan quagmire. The United States has routinely used Azeri airports in support of NATO and U.S. military operations in Afghanistan,
and thousands of flights carrying supplies to and from the Afghan
theater have crossed Azeri airspace over the past nine years since Sept.
11, 2001.

What is far less known is
that the capital, Baku, also has become a credible sounding board on
sensitive political developments. This translates into helping the Obama administration's foreign policy team get a sensible and qualified reading on Russia's aggressive political posture in the Caucasus and on an exceedingly defiant Iran. But neither Mr. Obama nor his senior aides have come up with a serious plan to jump-start negotiations with Armenia on Nagorno-Karabakh. It took more than a year for the administration to pick an ambassador to Azerbaijan, and Mr. Obama has yet to meet with Azeri President Ilham Aliyev.

Worse,
unlike in the Middle East, no special envoy has been appointed to help -
and ultimately replace - the idling Minsk Group. A cautious and passive
America in the Caucasus will only embolden an increasingly aggressive Russia. Mr. Obama must help defuse a potentially disastrous international conflict - before it is too late.

Foreign Policy Journal: Future of U.S.-Azerbaijani Relations

The strong relations between Azerbaijan
and the United States are very important for both countries’ national
and energy security. Both countries need to understand the importance of
cooperation and need to take action to reinforce relations with each
other.

Azerbaijan
is the country that is home to hundreds of ethnic groups. These ethnic
groups have been living in Azerbaijani lands in harmony for hundreds of
years. It is one of the countries in which a mosque, a church and a
synagogue are in peaceful co-existence. After 1996, the Azerbaijani
government restored two synagogues which were devastated during Soviet
rule. The U.S. considers itself as one of the most tolerant countries in
the world to different religions and ethnic groups. Azerbaijani and
U.S. religious and ethnic tolerance can be an example for many
countries. The United States and Azerbaijan share the same values in
terms of tolerance which makes collaboration at the government and
citizen levels easier.

The close relations between the U.S. and
Azerbaijan were established with the signing of the Contract of the
Century, which requires the member companies to develop the Azerbaijani
oil fields. The American oil companies received some of the biggest
shares from the contract. The shares of American companies are as
follows: AMOCO 17 percent, Pennzoil 9.8 percent, and Mc Dermott 2.4
percent.[1]

Azerbaijan experienced rapid GDP growth
after receiving a tremendous amount of investment from the U.S. and
other Western countries. Between the years of 2002-2008, the annual per
capita GDP growth rate increased from 7.3% to 15.7 %.[2] The imports in
euro terms for the year of 2006 were higher in Azerbaijan than in
countries like Armenia, Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania.[3] The rate of the
poverty declined from 49% to 40 percent between the years of 2001 and
2004.[4] We see considerable changes in the year of 2009 as poverty
decreased to 11%.[5] We see also progress in the inflation rate, which
decreased from 20.8% to 1.5 % between the years of 2008 and 2009.[6]

It is important to mention that
investments by U.S. corporations in the Azerbaijani oil sector played a
pivotal role in the improvement of bilateral relations between the two
countries. During the Clinton administration, an American interest in
the region began to grow especially in Azerbaijan because of its energy.
Azerbaijan became a key point of interest for the Clinton
administration as the United States officially signed a 10 billion
dollar investment contract with Azerbaijan to develop its oil fields.[7]

The September 11 attacks brought the
collaboration between the two countries to a higher level. Azerbaijan
was amongst the first countries to offer the United States unconditional
support in the war against terrorism, providing its airspace for
Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Azerbaijan was also the first
Muslim nation to send its troops to serve shoulder-to-shoulder with
U.S. forces in Iraq. Azerbaijan also joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace
Program in 1994, which helped to deepen U.S.-Azerbaijani military
cooperation. The Bush Administration primarily focused on military
cooperation as the United States and Azerbaijan signed an agreement on
this subject in 2002.

During the Obama administration, the
U.S. interest in Azerbaijan began to decrease. For example, the United
States did not invite the Azerbaijani president to the April 2010
Nuclear Summit held in Washington while Armenian and the Georgian
officials were among the participants. Another indicator of the
regression in bilateral relations is the fact that the U.S. did not
appoint an ambassador to Azerbaijan for one year, and still the U.S. has
no ambassador in the country.

Azerbaijan’s geopolitical location
(located between countries like Russia and Iran) makes it important for
U.S. national security interests. At the same time, Azerbaijan’s fast
growing economy and energy projects like the Trans-Anatolian Gas
Pipeline which is important for Europe’s energy security makes the
country an important player in the region. The U.S. support for
Azerbaijan is very important for the country’s future political and
economic successes. Azerbaijani officials need to promote and reinforce
democracy in the country, which will help improve the U.S.-Azerbaijan
partnership. The country’s strategists need to find ways to make the
country more foreign direct investment friendly, which will help attract
more investments from U.S. corporations. Similarly, Azerbaijani
governmental and non-governmental parties need to inform U.S. officials
and the people about the importance of Azerbaijan for the U.S. national
and energy security. Such efforts on Azerbaijan’s part will aid the
development of bilateral relations between the two countries.

On the other hand, U.S. government needs
to appoint and confirm an ambassador to Azerbaijan. This will be a
starting point for the reinforced relations between the two countries.
The U.S. government also needs to increase its support for the projects
like Nabbucco and the Trans Anatolian Gas Pipeline which are important
for the Europe’s energy security. U.S. officials should encourage
American corporations to invest in Azerbaijan’s energy and non-energy
sectors. Such efforts will aim to further develop economic relations
between the two countries. The next U.S. administration needs also to
increase military cooperation with Azerbaijan which is very important
for the both countries’ national security and for the peace in the
Caucasus and the Central Asian region.

The European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled that a Turkish
politician should not have been prosecuted for denying that the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turkey in 1915 was a genocide. In a landmark free speech ruling, the ECHR judges ruled by 10 votes
to seven that Doğu Perinçek, chairman of Turkey’s Patriotic party,
should never have been convicted of racial discrimination by a Swiss
court for saying that the “Armenian genocide is a great international
lie”.

Perinçek was convicted and fined in 2007 after a series of press
conferences on the topic, which the ECHR ruled was an infringement on
his right to free speech. In its judgment, the court said Perinçek’s
statements related to an issue of “public interest and did not amount to
a call for hatred or intolerance … and could not be regarded as
affecting the dignity of the members of the Armenian community to the
point of requiring a criminal law response”.

The court made a clear distinction with Holocaust denial, whose
specific history meant it could always be “seen as a form of incitement
to racial hatred” in certain countries. Its judges have earlier noted
that the historical facts of the Holocaust, “such as the existence of
gas chambers”, were “considered clearly established by an international
jurisdiction”.

Turkey has always denied that the killings,
which started in 1915, were a pre-meditated attempt by the then ruling
Ottomans to wipe out the Armenians. It says 500,000 died, not 1.5
million as claimed by Armenia. Before the mass killings, two million
Armenians were living in the territory of the Ottoman Empire. More than 20 nations have so far recognised the killings as genocide,
a definition supported by numerous historians but vehemently opposed by
Turkey.

In a series of press conferences in Switzerland in 2005, Perinçek
repeatedly blamed “imperialists from the west and from Tsarist Russia”
for stoking tensions between Muslims and Armenians in order to undermine
the Ottoman Empire, and said the resulting deaths were not a
premeditated attempt to wipe out an ethnic group. The Swiss side argued
that denying that a genocide occurred was tantamount to “accusing the
Armenians of falsifying history, one of the worst forms of racial
discrimination”.

Geoffrey
Robertson, the high-profile British lawyer representing Armenia, said
the Swiss authorities were wrong to prosecute Perinçek, but only because
he was “a worthless provocateur”. The ruling contained good news for Armenia, Robertson said, because it clearly stated they have “a right to respect for their history”. He added: “It clears the way for that to be protected in Europe against any real incitement to violence, hatred or intolerance.”

The ECHR said it did not have the authority to rule on whether the
Armenian killings were a genocide or not, which was a job for
international criminal courts. It also accepted that “the dignity of the
victims and the dignity and identity of modern-day Armenians were
protected by article 8” of the European convention on human rights. But
it ruled that in the specific circumstances of the case, a democratic
society should not have gone as far as

prosecuting Perincek over his
comments.

“The context in which they were made had not been marked by
heightened tensions or special historical overtones in Switzerland,” the
ruling said. “The Swiss courts appeared to have censured Mr Perinçek simply for
voicing an opinion that diverged from the established ones in
Switzerland,” it added.

The ECHR’s grand chamber ruling is final and binding on all council
of Europe members. Perinçek’s lawyer Laurent Pech hassaid that his
client “neither contested nor defended the massacres,” but merely denied
that the Ottoman authorities of the time had a genocidal intention.

Sabah
newspaper reports that general director and founder of STRATFOR
George Friedman has come to a conclusion that the normalization of the
Armenian-Turkish rapprochement can be effective only in case Russian
troops are withdrawn from Armenia, otherwise this process will be of no
importance. “Turkey should speak to
Armenia not of Nagorno Karabakh. It should discuss reducing Russia’s
role in this country. The presence of Russian troops in Armenia does
not meet Turkey’s interests. In such conditions, the opening of borders
with Armenia is of no use for Turkey, on the contrary, it may spoil
its relations with Azerbaijan. So keep Armenia isolated in this case”, Friedman said.
Meanwhile, Friedman compared the current power of Turkey with the US
power in 1930-1940’s. “Turkey has strength but no structures, which
could direct this strength. This is what Turkey should ponder over”, he
said.

The
head of the analytic center STRATFOR George Friedman met with the
representatives of the Turkish media. Among other issues the analytic
also spoke about Armenian-Turkish relations. Friedman underlined Russian
presence in Armenia isn’t good for Turkey and added: “Not
Nagorno Karabakh issue but the reduction of the Russian presence in
Armenia should be the main theme of the negotiations with Yerevan.
Presence of Russian soldiers on your border isn’t well for you. Caucasus
must become a buffer region against Russia.” Speaking about the opening of Armenian-Turkish border Friedman announced only Armenian side would gain something from it.
“Turkey won’t gain anything from the opening of the borders. Only
Yerevan will make profits of it. It isn’t logical to offend Azerbaijan
for Armenia. Let Armenia stay isolted,” said the head of the STRATFOR.

Yesterday, I testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s
Europe and Eurasian Subcommittee, which was investigating Iranian
strategy, influence, and interests in the Caucasus. As always, there’s good news and bad news
from the region. Azerbaijan remains a stalwart U.S. ally intolerant of
Iranian approaches. Georgia is as well, but after its October election
remains very much in play. Turkey’s efforts to subvert sanctions are well known. The greater problem today is Armenia:

According to a State Department cable released by Wikileaks, in
2008, U.S. diplomats concluded that Armenia shipped Iran weaponry, which
Iran then used to kill Americans.

In October 2011, a member of Armenia’s Nuclear Energy Organization
told the Iranian press that Tehran had enticed several Armenian nuclear
scientists to work in Iran’s nuclear program.

The Armenian community in the United
States is fortunate to be both vibrant and organized. It is unfortunate
that organizations representing the Armenian Diaspora in the United
States and the congressmen who partner with them do not do more to
encourage change in the Armenian government’s geopolitical behavior.
Certainly, Armenia is between a rock and a hard place. Russia looms
large, both culturally and politically, and Armenians are loathe to
unravel that relationship in an age when no one believes U.S. guarantees
of continued commitment.

Cultural links are also strong to Iran; when I first studied in the
Islamic Republic in the mid-1990s, my apartment was in Julfa, Isfahan’s
chief Armenian neighborhood. The Armenian community need not drop its
advocacy for recognition of the Armenian genocide, but by ignoring
Armenia’s pro-Iranian orientation, the Armenian-American community
squanders an opportunity to build a true strategic partnership between
Washington and Yerevan, a partnership which would certainly be to both
countries’ benefit.

On
July 18, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili met with his
Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev, in Batumi and mentioned the idea
of a “confederation” between the two countries. The phrase quickly
got people wondering what exactly the president had in mind. Analysts
have been raising questions and offering ideas ever since. Journalists
and political commentators from the countries of the South Caucasus
have examined the idea (whether they endorse it or not) in the
context of confrontational geopolitics. In August, Russia and Armenia
agreed to extend the pact on the presence of Russian military bases
in Armenia until 2044. At the same time, they expanded the format of
bilateral military cooperation: henceforth Russia is obliged to
defend Armenia from any external threat, which Yerevan expects
primarily from Azerbaijan. In short, Armenia has become an even
closer Russian ally than it was previously. The
discussion of a possible Georgia-Azerbaijan confederation was
immediately placed in the traditional context of the “vertical” axis of
Russia-Armenia (and, possibly, Iran) and the “horizontal” axis of
Georgia and Azerbaijan (and, possibly, Turkey). And they don’t forget
overseas allies, asserting that, of course, the idea of a
confederation comes from Washington and is aimed at containing
Russia. In a nutshell, after the failed Turkish-Armenian
rapprochement, everything has come back to its place: we loved to
talk about all these things back in the 1990s. But
what concrete political and legal steps would be necessary to
realize this “confederation” project? I haven’t heard anything
specific about this yet. First,
let’s take a look at exactly what Saakashvili said, some two months
ago. “A few years back I said that we must form confederative
relations,” Saakashvili said. “In fact, relations between our
countries are far beyond the relations that two countries ordinarily
have. We are a continuation of one another.” In
short, the Georgia-Azerbaijan confederation, according to the
president, is not a project for the future, but a description of the
present. That is, the term shouldn’t be viewed in strictly legalistic
terms, but as a rhetorical figure of speech that signifies
“particularly close relations between countries.” What’s
more, people in the president’s entourage insist that the same could
be said of Georgia-Armenia relations: there as well, the level of
closeness is very high. Of course, the Armenian side welcomes the use
of this term (even rhetorically) considerably less. To
be sure, it would be hypocritical to speak about an equivalence
between Georgia-Azerbaijan and Georgia-Armenia relations. Under the
circumstances of the cold war with Russia, Georgia can’t be pleased by
the intensification of Russia-Armenia military cooperation. There’s
no getting around that. Enemies And FriendsNonetheless,
neither Georgia nor Armenia would benefit from drawing strict
geopolitical conclusions from the two clear facts that Russia and
Georgia are enemies, while Russia and Armenia are allies. Likewise,
Russia and Azerbaijan do not intend to become enemies just because
Azerbaijan and Armenia are enemies and Armenia and Russia are allies.
The geopolitical formula that the “friend of my enemy is my enemy” does
not apply in the Caucasus today. And thank God. Since
the August 2008 war with Russia, Georgia has placed more
significance on regional relations and has actively sought to
intensify ties with all the countries of the region without regard
for their relations with one another. There is an element of
competition with Russia in this. Russia’s policy of not recognizing
the Saakashvili government is an effort to isolate Georgia
internationally. Moscow wants not only to undermine Tbilisi’s support
in the West, but also to exclude Georgia from regional connections. Saakashvili
is taking countermeasures, so far generally with success. Of course,
one can always argue about what “success” means, but under the
present circumstances Georgia views any sign of warming relations
with the countries of the region as a success - and, at the same
time, as a failure for Russia. Russia
is actively working to draw Azerbaijan into its sphere of influence
with various economic projects. While Turkey and Armenia were
flirting under Western patronage and Azerbaijan felt forgotten and
rejected by its closest friends -- Ankara and Washington -- it seemed
that some sort of geopolitical shift was possible. But the
accelerated construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad and new
steps toward realizing the Nabucco pipeline project show that the
Georgia-Azerbaijan-Turkey axis of cooperation is still functioning. It
is such projects most of all that are the real content of the
rhetorical term “confederation.” But,
on the other hand, the opening in March of the Russia-Georgia border
crossing at Verkhny Lars is not a sign of the warming of
Russian-Georgian relations (as Western experts want to believe). It is
an expression of Armenia-Georgia cooperation, since that road is
needed most of all by Armenia. What difference does it make whether
such a friendship is or is not called a "confederation?"

Every
year, efforts by the Armenian Diaspora in the United States to win
formal Congressional and Presidential recognition of the Armenian
Genocide culminate on April 24, the date Armenians mark as their
Genocide Remembrance Day. It’s a hot-button issue which historians
still debate. Genocide scholars and Armenian historians declare that
deliberate genocide occurred, while many Turkish historians and Ottoman
specialists question argue that Ottoman officials did not conduct
premeditated genocide, but rather that between 600,000 and 1.5 million
Armenians died in the fog of war. Regardless, the deaths of so many are
a tragedy, and one that should not be forgotten. Still, questions and
aspersions of denial and negation will only be settled when both the
Turks and Armenians open their archives to everyone without regard to
nationality or ethnicity.

I do not deny the
sensitivity of the genocide issue, but Armenian American organizations
are doing both themselves and U.S. national security a disservice by
making the genocide issue the community’s marquee issue. History must
be respected, but the future is as important as the past—if not more
so. To the present day, Turkey and Armenia remain adversaries.
Traditionally, the American alliance with Turkey has driven a wedge
between Washington and Yerevan. Sadly, Armenia remains largely
antagonistic to the United States. In 2009, Armenia voted with the
United States on important issues at the United Nations less than half the time; In contrast, Israel voted with the United States 100% of the time.

Armenia has also embraced Iran to the detriment of U.S. interests and security. Armenia has even reportedly supplied Iran with weapons, which the Islamic Republic used to kill Americans.

It is long past time for
Armenian organizations in the United States and the congressmen who
partner with them to demand change in Armenian behavior. By ignoring
Armenia’s orientation, the Armenian American community squanders an
unprecedented opportunity to build a true partnership. Turkey has
transformed from an ally into an adversary.
From a strictly realist perspective, never before have the
constellations oriented in such a favorable way to make the United
States receptive to Armenia, should Armenia seize the opportunity.

Yet the Armenian community in
the United States appears asleep at the switch. It need not drop its
interest in the genocide resolution, but it might nevertheless
prioritize strengthening the diplomatic and strategic partnership
between Washington and Yerevan. That partnership, however, will not
develop if the Armenian Diaspora cannot convince its cousins in the
Armenian homeland that a successful Armenian state could be a military,
security, economic, and diplomatic partner to the United States—not a
proxy for Iran or a puppet to Russia. Perhaps it’s time for the good
Congressmen and Congresswomen from California and New Jersey to push
back the next time Armenian lobbyists come knocking on their doors.

On December 7, 2015, Armenia held a landmark referendum on constitutional reform. The results were resounding. Over 63% of Armenians voted in favor of reforms that would greatly increase the power wielded by the Prime Minister and render the president's role in the Armenian political process ceremonial. Even though decreased presidential power in CIS countries is typically associated with democratic consolidation, liberal Armenians expressed severe discontent with the referendum's outcome. Opposition MPs in Armenia and European politicians accused regime officials of electoral fraud and criticized the lack of meaningful open political debate on constitutional reform prior to holding the vote. Four thousand Armenians protested the government's handling of the referendum in the streets of Yerevan immediately after the results were announced, confirming the predictions of Armenia experts that the regime would be destabilized yet again by mass unrest.Despite these protests and the fierce rhetoric emanating from established opposition groups in Armenia, it is intriguing that the current wave of demonstrations have not escalated to the levels witnessed in the summer 2015 Electric Yerevan protests. This failure is a testament to the success of Serzh Sargsyan regime's authoritarian consolidation efforts. Even though the July protests were largely motivated by popular discontent with Armenia's relationship with Russia, Sargsyan successfully deflected these concerns to benefit of his regime security. The Armenian regime has effectively addressed the domestic undercurrents of the protests while simultaneously exploiting crises in Turkey and Nagorno-Karabakh to receive more extensive support from the Kremlin. Why Sargsyan's Response to Electric Yerevan was EffectiveEven though Armenia has a long tradition of popular protests forged from the transition experience and the instabilities associated with authoritarian consolidation in the post-1991 period, the summer 2015 protests in Yerevan posed a distinct challenge to Sargsyan's regime security. Unrest occurred outside the context of an election cycle and the extensive participation of previously apolitical youth and urban professionals in the protests highlighted the extent to which civil society in Armenia had matured in recent years. The anti-Russian undercurrents of the Electric Yerevan movement fueled many comparisons with the Euro-Maidan revolution in Ukraine, especially amongst Russian observers. At points, Sargsyan's long-term future appeared uncertain, with chorus of premature political obituaries drumming louder as unrest worsened day-by-day. Sargsyan effectively defied these naysayers by demonstrating that he had learnt the lessons from Viktor Yanukovych's ignominious demise in Ukraine. Instead of resorting to mass violence to restore order, Sargsyan attempted to appease the protesters with concessions demonstrating his ostensible concern for their economic plight and demands for a less corrupt judicial process. Six days after the protests began, Sargsyan made a public statement insisting that the 17% hike in electricity costs was necessary to ensure Armenia's power grid was operational. But to alleviate the financial burden, he announced that the government not households would cover the excess costs until an independent audit of the price hike was completed. To prevent opposition movements from snowballing in retaliation to gratuitous police brutality, Sargsyan launched a police investigation into officers involved in the June 23 crackdown. A senior regime-affiliated member of the police force was demoted and police officers involved in the repression were reprimanded. Sargasyan's deft accommodation of the Yerevan protesters' grievances prevented the electricity protests from escalating into a national popular revolution. The absence of unified leadership amongst the Armenian opposition and the increasingly abstract nature of their agenda following the government's concession on the electricity issue ultimately defused the protests completely. To prevent a more cohesive challenge to the Republican Party's 16 year long hegemony over Armenian politics from emerging, Sargasyan has attempted to stimulate the economy by borrowing from international lenders and by presenting Armenia as an economic bridge between China and Europe. He also launched an ambitious constitutional reform agenda weakening presidential power to present a more credible façade of democracy to the international community, while providing a gateway to a potential run for a third presidential term.When opposition movements resisted these measures by claiming that Republican Party was trying to institutionalize a one-party system in Armenia, Sargsyan devised a divide-and-conquer strategy to marginalize the opposition and exploit its disunity. Amidst allegations of bribery and by courting Russian assistance, the Prosperous Armenia bloc supported the regime's proposed reforms, dissolving the opposition troika formed several months earlier. As a result, opposition blocs like the Heritage Party who opposed the Sargsyan reforms became increasingly hostile towards those who acquiesced and experienced defections amongst their own ranks. The regime's clever political machinations ensured that the December 7 referendum was met with much more muted opposition than one would have expected on the heels of Electric Yerevan. Armenia and Russia: A Tightening PartnershipThe second prong of Sargsyan's authoritarian consolidation strategy is a counter-intuitive one: deepening Armenia's partnership with Russia. The Electric Yerevan protests highlighted Russia's eroding soft power in Armenia and diminished popular support for integration with Putin's Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) during a period of economic recession. Sargsyan's channeling of public anger away from Russia and towards Armenian domestic policy by appearing to crack down on government mismanagement and police brutality was a risky move. But in the long run, it has crystallized Russia's support for Armenia, at a time when Azerbaijan has been attempting to thaw relations with the Kremlin.

Russia's increased support for Armenia once again upholds its reputation as the leading guardian of authoritarianism in the CIS region. The head of the Federation Council's Foreign Relations Committee Konstantin Kosachev described the summer 2015 protests in Armenia as bearing "all the hallmarks of a colored revolution." Elites close to Kremlin insinuated that Western-backed NGOs had a hand in fomenting instability in Yerevan.

Sargasyan's new found sense of vulnerability implored Russia to tighten its alliance with Armenia. In late October, the Russian government proposed the creation of a joint air defense mechanism with Armenia as part of a broader plan to create a CSTO aerial umbrella extending to Central Asia. Armenia also received a $200 million loan from Russia, which would be used to purchase long-range weapons and military hardware vital for the modernization of its military.

The sale of arms at discounted prices during a period of economic crisis in Russia and a brewing debt crisis in Armenia is a telling sign of Putin's commitment to preserving the bilateral relationship. It also repaired the strains created by the January slaying of an Armenian family by a Russian soldier, an event that caused Regional Studies Center director Richard Giragosian to speculate that an end to Armenia's security dependence on Russia was near.

In addition to stoking fears of uncontrolled popular revolutions that could diffuse to Russia, Armenia has curried Russian patronage by exploiting regional crises. The recent inflammation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been at least partially attributed to Armenian provocation. Azerbaijan's defense ministry on October 1 accused Armenia of violating the ceasefire 80 times a day by using heavy machine guns and mortar shells.

In tandem with these escalations, Russia has become increasingly confrontational in its rhetoric about the Karabakh conflict. Russian ambassador to the OSCE Aleksandr Lukashevich recently described Turkey's unconditional support for Azerbaijan as detrimental to long-term prospects of peace and an infringement on OSCE responsibilities. The economic aid and coercive capabilities the Armenian regime has received from Russia depend in part on Armenia facing credible security threats. Creating an atmosphere of perpetual crisis in the South Caucasus therefore plays right into Sargsyan's hands.

Armenia's scathing condemnation of Turkey's recent downing of a Russian jet over its airspace, and solidarity with Russia's counter-terrorism campaign has also strengthened the Sargasyan regime's ties to Russia. Sergei Mironov, the chairman of the upper house of the Russian parliament, submitted a bill on "holding to account" deniers of the 1915 Armenian genocide. The prospect of a major Russian military buildup on the Turkey-Armenia border has also become more realistic.

Yet unlike Yanukovych who made integration with Russia or the acceptance of the EU association agreement a mutually exclusive choice, Armenia has been able to balance increased Russian support with a multi-vector foreign economic policy. Armenia has actively co-opted Chinese investment, received 30 million euros from the EU to improve fiscal governance, and has reopened negotiations on a broad-based bilateral framework agreement with Europe. Sargsyan's successful free-riding off regional crises has given him flexibility and leverage that Ukraine's elites lacked in 2013, and has put Putin in a position in which escalating support for the Armenian regime is the only way for Russia to maintain its leverage in the South Caucasus.

Sargasyan's mixture of shrewd concessions, deflection of blame away from Russia to domestic institutions and exploitation of international crises to curry Russian support demonstrates that he has learnt the lessons of Maidan. His successful experience could also provide a powerful role model for other authoritarian Russian allies like Belarus or Kazakhstan, in combatting future mass protests and neutralize the effects of liberal civil society development.

A heavily rigged constitutional referendum that transforms Armenia into a parliamentary form of governance only serves to extend the rule of President Serzh Sargsyan who, nearing the end of his second and final term in office, is more than likely to be appointed Prime Minister. It is not clear where the vote’s outcome leaves the legitimacy of the Sargsyan regime in the eyes of the Armenian people and its standing in the global family of nations. What is clear is that the massive fraud and vote rigging observed on December 6 will push Armenia further away from the Western world and increase the country’s dependence on Russia as guarantor of security and stability.

The draft amendments to the constitution have been criticized for limiting the rights and political freedoms of citizens, and consolidating too much power in the hands of the ruling party. In addition, by significantly expanding the Prime Minister’s powers, the amended constitution is also seen as a way to extend Sargsyan’s rule beyond his second term in office by allowing him to take on the role of Prime Minister without term limits. Sargsyan’s Republican Party of Armenia, whose majority hold on parliament is nearly guaranteed under the revised constitution, is expected to select Sargsyan as Prime Minister. Sargsyan’s rule since 2008 has been marred by an unprecedented degree of corruption, nepotism, and poor economic/developmental decision-making. No stranger to conducting election fraud (most notably during the 2008, 2012, and 2013 elections), the Sargsyan government still surprised many observers with the tenacity with which it rigged the final tally in the December 6 referendum. Every trick in the book—including ballot stuffing; multiple and carousel voting, a process that involves voting with pre-marked ballots; and intentional miscounting—was used to secure the passage of the amendments with 66.2 percent for and 33.8 percent against, with turnout exceeding 50 percent. Pre-referendum public opinion surveys had shown a majority voting against the referendum, reflecting the regime’s low popularity rating and its failure to convince citizens of the necessity for the referendum. Once confirmed, the revised constitution will take effect on June 1, 2016. International election observers denounced the electoral proceedings. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe criticized the authorities for failing to protect the integrity of the electoral process, citing multiple violations including voter list fraud, vote buying, carousel voting, and illegal use of administrative resources. A joint statement by the European Platform for Democratic Elections, an international civil society network, and Citizen Observer, a group set up by Transparency International’s Armenian Anti-corruption Center, stated that the outcome of the referendum in Armenia cannot be considered legitimate due to the scale of violations. On December 8, the US Embassy in Yerevan said in a statement that “credible allegations of electoral irregularities…need to be fully investigated to ensure that the Armenian people can see the outcome of the referendum as credible and legitimate.” Contrary to Western observers, the chair of Russia’s Central Electoral Commission, Vladimir Churov, endorsed the elections, noting: “[a]ll procedures are being observed. Everything is calm. We have not seen any violations.” Local observers stationed at the polls experienced harassment and constant threats. “I was insulted, spat at, hit, threatened to be beaten and killed, thrown out of the station and taken to the police, and threaten by retaliation against family members, while election fraud took place before my own eyes” wrote a young local observer on his Facebook page. Social media was flooded with evidence of ballot stuffing, illegal voting, physical abuse of opposition proxies and journalists, and other serious procedural violations. Despite these adverse conditions, some local observers managed to stand their ground and physically defend the final vote tally during the counting process, when much of the violations reportedly took place. While assessments are still being finalized, initial results suggest that in those stations where local observers got involved, the constitutional amendments were rejected by a large margin. The opposition “New Armenia” Public Salvation Front and the “No” campaign headquarters were severely under-resourced and intimidated by the regime. In a classic example of fear mongering, the regime’s media outlets spread rumors that the opposition was linked with an alleged armed group captured by Armenia’s successor of the KGB in Hollywood fashion, days prior to the referendum. Some opposition leaders were regularly called in for questioning by local police in connection with earlier (politically-motivated) cases. In the end, the opposition’s inability to form a unified front and strategy of challenging the expected outcome is seen by some critics as the main explanation for the relatively weak public reaction to the mass fraud and vote rigging that followed the vote count. In recent years, Armenia’s disenfranchised majority has launched mass protests (the “Electric Yerevan” protest of June 2015 being the latest in the series) to challenge the regime’s grip on power and its poor policy record. However, the odds have so far been against the demonstrators, with the regime regularly getting away with using disproportional force. It is ultimately up to this majority to use the power granted to them by the old constitution to move Armenia away from this disastrous equilibrium characterized by mass migration, widespread poverty, and geopolitical irrelevance. While the Armenian diaspora and Armenia’s Western partners also have a role to play, the window is closing and the country may be approaching a point of no return.

If You Love A Country, Set It Free: The Case For Cutting Aid To Armenia

Much ado is made by some members of the U.S. government about what is
in fact an inaccurately perceived partnership with Armenia. However,
the facts belie the rhetoric versus the seemingly blind support given to
Armenia. Just last week, it is important to note that the European Court of
Human Rights declared that Armenia controls the Nagorno-Karabakh
territory of Azerbaijan. The essence of a longer judgment is that
Armenia occupies part of another sovereign nation and has left more than
a million refugees. This is a long understood fact that some in
government seem to gloss over.

In addition, at the recent Riga Summit of the EU’s Eastern
Partnership, the EU confirmed that Armenia remains out of step with
Europe and the United States. Unlike the other two countries from the
South Caucasus, Georgia and Azerbaijan, Armenia remained loyal to its
Russian patron and failed to support the West’s condemnation of Russia’s
annexation of Crimea. Armenia’s actions confirmed its complete
dependence on Russia for its foreign policy. This patron-client
relationship leaves Armenia in a rut and further isolates this small
country.

This unequal relationship, in which Russia serves the sole guarantor
of Armenia’s security and economy, leaves the smaller country no choice
but to blindly follow dictates from Moscow and continue its dependence
on energy supplies from another international pariah — Iran. Because
of the occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory of Azerbaijan, the
largest regional oil pipeline, Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, runs from Azerbaijan
to Georgia and terminates in Turkey, purposefully bypassing Armenia.
Thus, due to Armenia’s intractability over Nagorno Karabakh, Armenia is
excluded from a lucrative share of Caspian oil to Europe. Instead of
benefitting from the bountiful energy and transportation projects
supported by the European Union, Armenia persists on its “go with Russia
and Iran” policy. In the meantime, Azerbaijan and Georgia are building
for the future with the West.

Armenia even joined the Organization of the Treaty of Collective
Security (OTSC), the anti-EU, NATO, and U.S., Russian-sponsored military
and political alliance. Armenia compromised its sovereignty by allowing
Russian troops to be stationed on its territory, the last of the
former-Soviet Republics to allow such an infringement … even sanctioning
the Russians to patrol its borders and airspace. This agreement was
recently extended to 2044.

Armenia also participates in the Russian-dominated military structure
that provides air defense for the OTSC member states called the
Commonwealth of Independent States United Air Defense System. Armenia
seems to constantly seek expansion of its military ties with Russia,
despite Russia’s growing international isolation. Russian diplomat, A.

Dvinyaninov in 2007 advised the Armenian politicians. “That is the
Armenian approach to Russia’s security is selective, and Russia seems
ready for any eventualities of development of relations with Armenia.”
In the meantime, Armenia provides a bridgehead for Russia’s power
projection not only in the Caucasus, but also in the Near East. Another
aspect of this “close cooperation” is that Russia executes effective
military control in this South Caucasian republic.

Economically, Armenian leadership showed a criminal abrogation of
responsibility in its relations with Russia. Without putting up any
resistance, Armenia’s precious few enterprises were transferred to
Russia’s ownership. The current president, Serzh Sargsyan, was directly
involved in the so-called 2003 Equity-for-Debt deal. Five major assets
traded in the deal include key energy, research and development, and
manufacturing facilities, such as the Metzamor nuclear power plant,
which supplies about 40 percent of its domestic energy. Russia also
controls Armenia’s energy sector and is dominant in its transportation,
banking, and telecommunications.

Stephen Schwartz makes the case for Kosovar
independence now and why the U.S. must support the ethnic Albanians
against Serbia and Russia. The alternative, he warns, will be "the
return of Russian power, enriched by energy and bent on reestablishing a
bipolar world in which only the U.S. and Moscow count."

World
War IV is real. It began not on September 11, 2001, but in 1978 when
the Russians installed a puppet regime in Afghanistan. The Russian
incursion south toward the Indian Ocean reproduced the history of more
than a century before, beginning in 1875, when the tsar incited the
Balkan Christians to rebel against the Ottomans. But events never repeat
themselves exactly. Developments today follow the cycle between the
Austrian absorption of Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1908 and the Sarajevo
assassination of 1914. Europe claims that, like the Habsburgs in Bosnia,
it will bring progress to Kosovo, now demanding independence. Russia
seeks aggrandizement. But while those are the permanent features of the
political landscape, the details have been distorted to appear new.Kosovo
has dropped off the political map for most Americans, who are diverted
by continuing terrorism in the core Islamic countries – exemplified by
the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Similarly, Western obliviousness
has encouraged Turkey to attack Iraqi Kurdistan with impunity.
Westerners find it difficult to perceive clearly how, while the U.S. is
absorbed with the headlines in the battle against jihadists, other
malign interests – Russian and Chinese imperialism no less than Turkish
ultranationalism – pursue their own aims. The appetites of Moscow could
again set Europe afire, beginning in Kosovo - just as war was touched
off in Sarajevo. While Kosovo appears most important to Albanians and
their friends, the territory’s independence is significant for another
reason – as a bulwark against revived Russian designs beyond its
borders. Kosovo independence has been promised, explicitly or
implicitly, by the U.S. and some European countries since 1999. There
are no special “processes” required for the attainment of independence,
except, when necessary, a struggle against the colonial power. Indeed,
the United Nations declared in the great age of decolonization – the
1950s and 1960s – that “Inadequacy of political, economic, social or
educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying
independence.”Failure to secure independence for the Kosovar
Albanians will have further negative consequences. First, it would be a
betrayal by the U.S. of one of the few majority-Muslim communities in
the world that is wholly pro-American – a threat also visible in the
alienation of Kurdish affections by American hesitation to restrain
Turkey in Iraq. But most importantly, it will encourage Serbian
adventurism, as well as similar attitudes elsewhere – beginning in
Turkey and Russia, but opening a road without a predictable end, except
probable disaster. While Western media and pseudo-experts prattle about
the dangers of “separatism” in Europe, the real menace comes from the
arrogance of the established powers, not from the oppressed small
nations. Giant Russia has always backed nearby Serbia against the
Albanians, except briefly during the Tito era, while the few million
Albanians have real friends only in distant America. The balance is
hardly as even as it should be. When I went to Kosovo in mid-December –
expecting a declaration of independence at that time – Kosovars were
still trusting and enthusiastic about America, but consumed with rage at
the obstruction of Russia and the endless delays proposed by the
Europeans.Russian imperialism has been the bulwark of
obscurantism and collective hatred in Europe since the 18th century, and
the division of Poland beginning in 1772. The regime of Vladimir Putin
has revived the strategy of encroachment and belligerence pursued by his
predecessors. Few of us who fought for and celebrated the defeat of
Soviet Communism imagined that it would be succeeded by mafia
capitalism, and then by a neo-tsarism that exploits its speculative
prosperity to demand submission from its neighbors. In accord with this
legacy, Putin and his cohort have repeatedly stated bluntly that the
Kosovo question must be deferred to the United Nations Security Council,
where Moscow will veto independence.

The anticolonial principles that
the Russians claimed to support in 1960, when the issue was that of the
Congolese versus the Belgians, are elided now that Moscow wishes to
reincorporate Ukraine and China continues to exercise a cruel domination
over Tibet. Kosovo has gained the renewed, if vague, attention of the
Western press, which unfailingly covers the bid for statehood in two
ways, both mendacious. The first turns victims of a 20th century
attempted genocide into the victimizers. Thus the British dailies
tearfully elicit sympathy for Kosovo Serbs who allegedly face “ethnic
cleansing” from their supposed “cultural cradle.” The second way reduces
the issue to irrelevance, treating the Kosovars as yet another quixotic
separatist movement in which the arguments of “both sides” merit equal
attention. The Kosovar Albanian viewpoint – the land was theirs
centuries before the Slavic invasions 1,500 years ago – is seldom heard
or read in the Western media.Srebrenica – the site of the 1995
massacre of some 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys by Serbian terrorists
– is the most prominent recent symbol of Moscow-backed genocidal
aggression in Europe. While Boris Yeltsin, then the titular leader of
post-Soviet Russia, pursued inconsistent policies on the issues created
by Russia’s imperial history, powerful interests in the former USSR
backed Serbian and other terrorist crimes against whole communities.
Throughout the Bosnian conflict, Russian nationalist media and
politicians supported Serb claims, and Russian volunteers served
alongside Serbs in committing bloody atrocities in Bosnia-Hercegovina
and Kosovo. I argued in my 2002 book The Two Faces of Islam that a
Muscovite strategy of Slav-Orthodox assault on vulnerable Muslims had
been visible not merely in Afghanistan, but in Europe, too. Communists
expelled Bulgaria’s Turkish minority and “nationalized” domestic
Bulgarian Muslims in the 1980s. Armenia also assaulted Azerbaijan, and
Russia’s devastation of Chechnya began as the Soviet Union collapsed.

In
other words, the wars against the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovar Albanians
came after many warnings, for those capable of understanding them.
Kosovo has a Srebrenica, which is much less well-known. It is called
Korenica and is located in the western section of Kosovo, near the city
of Gjakova. In Korenica, on April 27, 1999 – a month after the
commencement of the NATO bombing of Serbia – nearly 400 Albanians were
wantonly murdered by Serbian irregulars. But Korenica is significant for
more than its having seen the largest number of Albanian victims in a
single Serbian assault during the 1998-99 conflict.While Serbs
and their apologists portray their role in the long battle for Kosovo as
a defense against a jihadist offensive by Albanian Muslims hateful of
Slav Christians, their churches, and their sacred heritage, the majority
of the Albanians killed at Korenica were Catholics. The aim of the
Serbs, like that of their Russian protectors, has always been to promote
the dominance of the Orthodox Christian identity over all the peoples
that follow religious traditions different from it. I first learned of
the crime of Korenica only months after it took place, during a visit to
Gjakova. I found out about the killings accidentally, when I drove
along a rural road and found a Sufi turbe or mausoleum. Inside the
structure, I was shocked to discover the coffins of 24 infants. It was
then that I learned about the Korenica slayings, and was taken to a
graveyard that included many wooden markers with the initials “N.N.” for
an unidentified corpse.

I believe I was among the first foreigners,
aside from some human rights monitors, to thoroughly research the
Korenica incident, and in the years that followed I continued an
extensive inquiry into it. First, in 1999, I interviewed a brave
Albanian Catholic priest from Gjakova, Pater Ambroz Ukaj, who had defied
Serbian officers to learn what had transpired in Korenica. Later I
learned that a Sufi, Shaykh Rama of Gjakova, had been killed at
Korenica. In recent years, the Center for Islamic Pluralism, of which I
am Executive Director, has appealsupportmixedalbanian.htm”>supported
reconstruction of a primary school in the Korenica district, the Pjetër
Mugy School in the hamlet of Guska, that educates both Catholic and
Muslim childrenEurope seems not to understand that in refusing
to repudiate Serbian and Russian blandishments, and in failing to assist
the Kosovar Albanians consequentially, it is committing a slow suicide.
Spain is afraid of demands for rights by the Basques and Catalans;
Slovakia and Romania have a bad conscience about their treatment of
their large Hungarian minorities, which possess capacity for resistance
unknown among the Roma, those other martyrs to Slovak and Romanian
nationalism. Cyprus should probably not have been admitted to the EU
without the participation of its Turkish-minority northern zone (a topic
so convoluted as to require a separate article.)

But rather than deal
with stateless nations and minorities fairly, resolve its fear of
Turkish Islam, and recognize the unquenchable desire of the Kosovar
Albanians for freedom, Europe may blindly submit to the return of
Russian power, enriched by energy and bent on reestablishing a bipolar
world in which only the U.S. and Moscow count. The U.S. still counts,
more than either the hallucinated Serbian and Russian leadership or the
Europeans – the latter with a disgraceful record of preferring peace to
freedom. America must support Kosovar independence, without dishonorable
concessions to Belgrade or Moscow, and without delay.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz (born September 9, 1948) is an AmericanMuslim[1]journalist, columnist, and author. He has been published in a variety of media, including The Wall Street Journal.[2]
He is the executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. In
August 2011 he was elected as member of Folks Magazine's Editorial
Board.[3]

The warped State Department-hatched Turkey-Armenia Protocols did not
yield the necessary results for the US, nor have efforts to strong-arm
Armenia into making dangerous concessions on the Karabakh front, so the
US has renewed an old “concern” by alleging that Iran is using Armenia
to for financial transactions that might violate international sanctions
on Tehran over its nuclear program.

An exclusive report by Reuters Tuesday,
citing a nebulous “Western intelligence report” and quoting anonymous
diplomatic sources, claimed that Iran is seeking financial alternatives
“in countries that do not work according to the dictates of the West” is
looking to expand its banking foothold in Armenia to allegedly deceive
Western governments that have been attempting to curtail Iranian banking
activities worldwide to thwart Iran’s nuclear

program.

The so-called “Western intelligence report,” according to Reuters,
has singled out the Yerevan-based ACBA Credit Agricole Bank, one of the
largest in Armenia, as one of Iran’s principal targets. Reuters also
spoke to an anonymous Western UN diplomat who confirmed that ACBA was “a
bank that has come up in connection with Iran.” He declined to provide
details of any potentially illicit ACBA transactions linked to Iran,
said Reuters.

This fracas has prompted the Armenian Central Bank to issue a blunt
denial, echoing earlier statements by ACBA officials, who in the Reuters
report, vehemently denied the allegations that the financial
institution is being used by Iran for illicit activities.

“The Central Bank of Armenia obligates all banks and financial
institutions in the Republic of Armenia to scrutinize their
transactions, in order to avoid any possible involvement in transactions
considered unacceptable by the international community,” said a
statement issued by the CBA. “We don’t have any relationship with Iran,” The ACBA chief executive
Stepan Gishian told Reuters. “We never have, we don’t now and
furthermore we don’t plan on becoming a channel for financing Iran. What
you’re saying is complete nonsense.”

Furthermore, recent news reports indicate that Armenia has been
following the mandates set forth by the sanctions imposed both on Iran
and Syria, since Syrian and Iranian nationals of Armenian descent have
experienced difficulty opening bank accounts in Armenia, because of
their citizenship. This is especially disheartening to Armenians who are
leaving Syria due to the crisis there and are experiencing hurdles in
establishing themselves in Armenia.

The Reuters reports does state that Turkey and the United Arab
Emirates remain Iran’s largest banking connections, but claims that due
to US pressure, especially the government of Turkey has become more
vigilant in its business with Iran. Reportedly, President Serzh Sarkisian was cautioned by Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton during her visit in June to Armenia about US
concerns over the Iran’s interests in Armenia.

Iran remains one of Armenia’s largest trading partners with a
reported $1 billion in trade. Asbarez has extensively reported about the
intense desire by Armenia and Iran to strengthen their strategic
partnership through varied projects, including the construction of an
oil pipeline and a highway that would connect Iran’s port of Bandar
Abbas with Batumi in Georgia, thus providing a direct link for Armenia
to a seaport.

Evidently, this organic neighborly and centuries-old relationship
between Armenia and Iran does not sit well with the US and its Western
allies, who are keen on tightening the noose around Iran’s neck because
of concerns over its nuclear program and be damned whatever stands in
their way. However justified those concerns might be, Armenia should not be
penalized by the US, which in its efforts to police the world, is
bullying nations to conform to its standards.

If the US scrutinized its own domestic financial system as
meticulously as it does other nations’ perhaps the loopholes that
allowed for the collapse of the banking system and wide-spread
corruption in this country would have been avoided.

Moreover, if the US went as far as to caution Armenia, it has not
lifted a finger to force Turkey and Azerbaijan to lift their blockade of
Armenia, which has been in place since 1993 and in international legal
circles is considered an act of aggression or war. Instead the US has
concocted convoluted schemes—the Protocols and policy on Karabakh—that
abets Turkey to continue its denial of the Genocide and face history and
diminishes the sacred principle of self-determination.

The Reuter report is a harbinger of things to come. The failed
approaches by the US to address concerns in the South Caucasus have now
taken on a worrisome tone. How far will the US go to force its misplaced
policies on other nations, especially Armenia?

On
Tuesday, the prestigious Forbes magazine published a list of the
world’s ten worst economies in which Armenia occupies the second place
next to Madagascar. Forbes has selected the worst ten
economies from among 117 countries according to three-year average
statistics for gross domestic product growth and inflation (including
the International Monetary Fund’s 2012 estimates), plus GDP per capita
and the current account balance, a measure of whether the country is
importing more than it exports.Compared with the list for 2010,
significant changes have taken place this year. While the previous
release included mostly African nations, this year the list also
includes Ukraine (4th position), Kyrgyzstan (7th) and Iran (10th). The
authors of the research consider not only the economic crisis, but also
mismanagement, corruption as causes of the decline of economies.“Onetime
losers like Ghana and Zimbabwe got their economic acts together and
moved off the list while some countries, including Armenia and Jamaica,
marched into the lower ranks primarily because of the global financial
crisis. Others, like Madagascar and Nicaragua, earned their positions
almost entirely due to the ineptitude of their rulers. It should come
as no surprise that eight of the 10 worst economies also were in the
bottom quartile of countries in Transparency International’s Global
Corruption Perceptions Index, with Guinea, Kyrgyzstan and Venezuela
scoring close to the bottom,” says the report.“Beyond income,
(corruption) extends to economic development,” it quotes Transparency
International’s Robin Hodess, group director for research and
knowledge, as saying. “All of the indices that reflect human
development suffer. Where government doesn’t work, economies don’t
grow.”According to Forbes, Armenia mainly suffered because of
the financial crisis: “Armenia’s economy shrank by 15% in 2009 as an
expatriate-financed construction boom fizzled along with the world
economy. With a mediocre growth forecast for the next few years, this
landlocked former Soviet republic, dependent upon Russia and Iran for
virtually all of its energy supplies, is struggling to keep up with the
rest of the world. Per-capita GDP of $3,000 is less than a third of
neighboring Turkey, and inflation is running at 7%. On top of that,
Russia cut back on supplies of diamonds, hurting Armenia’s once-thriving
diamond-processing industry.”Armenia’s well-known economist,
head of the “Alternative” Research Center Tatul Manaseryan tends to
trust the kind of assessment made by Forbes. “Usually, the Forbes
surveys are well grounded and our researches also show that Armenia’s
economy, to put it mildly, is not in a good condition. In this sense, I
can share this opinion. But I am confident that possibilities of
redressing the situation are not exhausted,” Manaseryan told
ArmeniaNow.

The
second anniversary of blitzkrieg between Russia and Georgia underscores
the unresolved geopolitical undercurrents in this region among the
seas. Landlocked by the forces of history from the Caspian, the Black
and the Mediterranean, Armenia ’s pivotal position remains encircled by a
neighborhood in strategic turmoil. The inherent jeopardy flowing from Turkey ’s now obviously disingenuous engagement of Armenia , the challenges posed by Azerbaijan ’s graduation from its threatening language of war to its launch of a deadly attack in June, and the general
escalation of tension across the Caucasus have combined to define the
greater region as one at immediate risk of deepening instability.

Against this backdrop of system-wide insecurity, Armenia is now facing a dangerous alignment of outside interests and internal shortcomings. While Yerevan ’s “strategic” relationship with Moscow continues to serve as the bedrock for regional peace and security, the nature of the Armenian-Russian
embrace is unduly lopsided. The asymmetry of the Russian-Armenian
relationship is most manifest in the fundamental lack of equal and
mutually respectful cooperation.

After
all, Armenia ’s hosting of the only Russian military base in the area
is no simple act of kindness, and must be anchored in a shared regard
for each other’s interests. What is more, the Russian base is the only
such facility outside of the Russian Federation where the host country
receives neither rent nor reimbursement. Armenia pays for the totality
of its costs and expenses. Such a mortgaging ofArmenian national
security is unacceptable and demands immediate redress. In the new era,
Armenian-Russian partnership, in order to be strategic without quotation
marks, must be sincere, really reciprocal and based on horizontal
respect, despite the differences in size and experience between the two
nations.

A
case in point is the information recently leaked by the Russian media
and reactively confirmed by official Yerevan that the two states, either
bilaterally or under the auspices of the CollectiveSecurity Treaty
Organization (CSTO), intend to extend up to 49 years the treaty
arrangement for the Russian base and the deployment of forces there.
Matters of dignity aside, this flies in the face ofArmenian sovereignty,
foreign policy independence, and vital national interests. It also
flouts the unlimited future potential of an actually strategic
partnership between us.

This
holds especially true in view of the fact that the existing base
agreement does not expire until 2020 and can, if necessary, be extended
upon expiration for five or even ten years. Of further consternation is
the Kremlin’s military rapport with and sales to Ankara , which stands
in occupation of the historic Armenian patrimony, has imposed a
modern-day blockade of the Republic of Armenia tantamount to an act of
war, and continues to deny and shirk responsibility for the Genocide and
GreatArmenian Dispossession of 1915.

A
more contemporary source of outrage is Moscow’s military support for
Azerbaijan, which having launched a failed war of aggression against
Mountainous Karabagh and Armenia is today threatening renewed
hostilities, completing its occupation of theArmenian heartlands of
Shahumian, Getashen, Artsvashen, and Nakhichevan, and continuing with
impunity to destroy and desecrate the Armenian cultural heritage at
Jugha and elsewhere. In this connection, in the event that Russia indeed
carries through with the reported sale of its S-300 weapon systems or
other equivalent armaments to the aggressive, belligerent, and
revisionist regime of Azerbaijan, Armenia should withdraw forthwith from
the CSTO, of which it is the sole member from the region, or at the
very least require full fair-market rent for the Russian base together
with reimbursement for water, electricity and other relevant expenses.

And
finally, the ultimate achievement of Partnership between Russia and
Armenia , and between Russia and the West, will necessarily entail an
actual application of the Rule of Law—not only domestic but also
international—and hence the recognition of the Republic of Mountainous
Karabagh within its constitutional frontiers, as well as of Kosovo and
Abkhazia. Anything else is partisan politics, petty political gain and sui generis
dissimulation, all of which might make sense for some and for the
moment but at bottom run counter to the aims of peace, security, justice
and democratic values for the critical landmass amid the seas.

Armenia’s president Serzh Sargsyan might be a nice guy, but he came to
power by force of failed elections. He should step down and finally
oversee the conduct of post-Soviet Armenia’s first free polls since
1991, the year it declared independence. The nation he aspires to
represent deserves no less. Democracy must become an Armenian benchmark,
not a motto thrown about to Western “partners” and other
interlocutors who toast that best of systems, but then kill it with
their duplicitous policies.

Sargsyan’s Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul is also a nice man, but he
continues to represent a denialist regime that sponsors the killing
of journalists such as Hrant Dink, strangles its minorities, and is
the legal heir of the Ottoman Empire, which committed genocide against
the Armenian people and dispossessed it of its ancestral homeland.
Gul’s and his just-too-sly foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s recent
addresses at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in
Strasbourg—and the outlandish bluster of EU Affairs Minister Egemen
Bagis at Auschwitz—beg the point. Modern-day Turkey must face history
and itself, recognize the great genocide, and cease its unlawful and
inhuman occupation of Western Armenia.

Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliev is not so nice, but he is more
honest in his authoritarian and occupationist demeanor. Mountainous
Karabagh, or Artsakh, is Armenian land, his predecessors lost what
they never had in a war of aggression they unleashed two decades ago,
and they will never see it again except as good neighbors. He would
do himself and humanity a necessary favor by respecting the rights of
his own citizens, by returning the Armenian heartlands, including
Shahumyan and Nakhichevan, still under Azerbaijani occupation to their
rightful owners, and by making full redress to the hundreds of
thousands of Armenians, Lezgins, Talishes, Tats, and other minorities
which he and his have attempted to destroy.

If international law,
self-determination, decolonization, and basic liberty are to carry
true, not rhetorical import in the life and development of the
contemporary world, then it must be ruled by rights equally guaranteed.
Mountainous Karabagh, like Kosovo and Abkhazia, is the cutting-edge litmus test and must be recognized de jure and
without discrimination by the community of nations. Who will be the
first to recognize all three at once and to demonstrate that law and
rights are worth more than a dollar in global affairs today? Georgia’s
man Mikheil Saakashvili is revered occidentally but ridiculed in the
east. He has brought some truly meaningful changes to his homeland and
enjoys due credit. At the same time, he continues to trample the
ethnic, religious, and linguistic rights of the Armenian region known to
all as Javakhk. He ought to rediscover his democratic edge and
renounce the xenophobic side of policies and prejudices.

Russia’s
leaders, too, must get with the game and finally recognize the
fundamental rights of their “strategic ally.” It’s time to end the
imperialistic, even if soft, design to control Armenia as its
traditional, God-given “forepost.” Either accept Armenia’s sovereignty
and stand in true partnership with it—internationally, nationally,
democratically—or let it go and face a new day. We all need that new
day, and there is no need to blame the other: All persons and peoples
have been mentioned herein without offense and with deference to their predicaments and interests. But this is Armenia’s last stand—and ultimate responsibility.

Across
an ocean and a continent, on a sliver of land tucked between two seas,
a little republic today enters its 20th year of independence. I know a
man there, an American by birth – except that 20 years ago, he quit his
law firm in Los Angeles, decided he had no further business in the
United States, and went to search for his destiny in Armenia. It was a
romantic time. One by one, the 15 Soviet satellites were breaking from
the Kremlin’s orbit, and exiled sons were returning to their homelands
to share in the creation of new republics. As for my father, Raffi K.
Hovannisian, once the football star of the Pali High Dolphins, he left a
promising legal career and moved with wife and children to Yerevan, the
capital of Soviet Armenia. After independence was officially declared
on Sept. 21, 1991, my father was handed a fax machine and a first
month’s paycheck of 600 rubles – $143. He was told he was the republic’s
first minister of foreign affairs.Post-Soviet seeds of democracy

All across the Soviet plains, the seeds of democracy were being sown
into soil tyrannized for generations, but no one doubted that they
would grow. My father certainly didn’t. Within a year, he had
established diplomatic relations with every major democracy in the
world. At United Nations headquarters in New York, he had raised the
red, blue, and orange Armenian flag. That was nearly 20 years ago.
Everything was possible then.But the shadow of history soon closed in on
the Armenians. The capital went dark. Faucets dried up. Grain shipments
stopped coming in.

On
the streets of Yerevan, a generation of child beggars emerged.
Policemen waved batons for two-dollar bribes. Teachers worked for
bribes, too. The presidents came to control every judge, prosecutor, and
public defendant who wanted to keep his job. Fair trials and free elections became failed promises.
Incumbents almost always “won” – while losers almost never went home
without first leading a mob of a hundred thousand citizens through the
capital. In 1999, during a session of parliament, all the president’s
key adversaries were assassinated. My father long ago resigned from the
Yerevan government, but he, at least, never gave up the dream. Instead,
in 2001, he gave up his American passport once and for all.

The
following year, he founded Heritage, a national-liberal party, which
now represents the opposition in the Yerevan parliament. To this day, my
father is admired by his people. In a recent poll, Gallup pegged his
popularity at 82 percent – but not for the obvious reasons. “Achke kusht e,”
the people say of him, “His eye is full.” In other words: the man has
seen the world, and he’s not in politics for the money. In Armenia, that
is enough. Today the Yerevan government is linked to a group of
powerful businessmen called “oligarchs,” who invest in and control the
political game. One of them has the monopoly on gas, another the
monopoly on sugar and flour. All of them have nicknames, armies of
bodyguards, and fleets of luxury cars escorting them ostentatiously
through the city.Power-hungry tycoons

The
rulers are multimillionaires, the lot of them, though they have
incurred great debts to the original power tycoons surrounding the
Kremlin in Moscow, to whom they have been selling the country’s gold
mines and electricity plants. And they are ready to sell much more than
that. Last month, Armenia hosted a summit of the Collective Security
Treaty Organization, a post-Soviet alliance including Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan – republics unclaimed by the West, republics
that are now following an ancient gravity to its source in mother
Russia. During the August meeting, Russia secured a 24-year extension of
its lease on a key military base in Armenia. Actually, lease isn’t the
word. The base is funded and sustained entirely by the Armenian state.
Now you see why today, in Yerevan, there is not much independence or
democracy left to celebrate. And by now my father, too, must see what
his romanticism has long prevented him from seeing: Armenia is not free,
not independent, not united. The Soviet soil has spit out the seeds of
democracy.Hope foreshadows freedom

Of
course my father still keeps the faith, and there is some evidence to
support it. For the first time in Armenia, a civil society is taking
shape to bridge a government and a people, so far disenfranchised from
each other. Denied television airwaves, opposition media are now
transmitting their protest through the Internet. And that little party
in parliament, though it has not realized a revolution, can at least
symbolize – and foreshadow – a free and independent Armenia. And so we
hope, and we even know, that the tree of liberty will grow from Armenian
soil one day. But not today, not until, in the words of another
founding father, “it is refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants” –
both of which, I’m afraid, Armenia has plenty.

Representatives of the Armenian and Turkish civil society to come together
at a conference in Istanbul

On
October 22-23, 2012, more than 50 representatives of the Armenian and
Turkish civil society and expert communities will come together at a
conference in Istanbul to discuss the role of non-state actors in
promoting Armenia-Turkey relations. The conference is organized as part of the “Support to Armenia-Turkey
Rapprochement” (SATR) project, funded by the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), and implemented by the Eurasia
Partnership Foundation, Yerevan Press Club, International Center for
Human Development, and Union of Manufacturers and Businessmen
(Employers) of Armenia.Key Turkish partners for the project include the
Global Political Trends Center, the Turkish-Armenian the Business
Development Council, Anadolu Kültür, the GAYA Research Institute, the
Media and Communications Department of Izmir University of Economics,
Toplum Gönüllüleri Vakfi, the Turkish Economic and Social Studies
Foundation, and the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey.

The conference will summarize the outputs, achievements, and lessons
learned during the two years of the Support to Armenia-Turkey
Rapprochement Project implementation, as well as present an opportunity
to discuss strategies for the road ahead for non-state actors in
promoting Armenia-Turkey relations.

USAID and its partner organizations support Armenia-Turkey
rapprochement by facilitating engagement between civil society groups,
establishment and development of business partnerships and regional
professional networks, and enhanced understanding between the people,
for peace and economic integration in the region.

The annual report of Freedom House, released on Thursday, again put
Armenia on the list of ‘partly free’ countries, whereas Nagorno-Karabakh
has registered regress, being defined as a ‘not free’ territory
instead of the previous ‘partly free’. Freedom in the World 2011: The
Authoritarian Challenge to Democracy Report’s estimation given to
Karabakh causes concerns, as Karabakh previously got a higher
estimation than Azerbaijan, whereas now both are considered to be
authoritarian.Since 2002, Washington-based ‘Freedom House’ global human rights
watchdog has considered Armenia to be a ‘partly free’ country along
with its neighboring Georgia, whereas Azerbaijan was a ‘not free’
country during the recent years. According to the methodology of the
report, a ‘partly free’ country is one in which there is limited
respect for political rights and civil liberties. Partly Free states
frequently suffer from an environment of corruption, weak rule of law,
ethnic and religious strife, and a political landscape in which a
single party enjoys dominance despite a certain degree of pluralism.A ‘not free’ country is one where basic political rights are absent,
and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied. (One
point is the best index in this table, and seven points is the worst.)
This year’s report, as the previous one, gave six points to the
expression of a political right and its defense, and four points went
to the defense of civil freedom. As compared to the previous five
points Armenia has registered regress since 2009, after the
controversial elections in 2008 and the post-election clashes.According to the methodology of the report, six points goes to those
countries where “systems are ruled by military juntas, one-party
dictatorships, religious hierarchies, or autocrats. These regimes may
allow only a minimal manifestation of political rights, such as some
degree of representation or autonomy for minorities.” The decline of
Nagorno-Karabakh’s index in the report is explained by the absence of
an opposition at the Parliamentary elections 2010.Meanwhile, Karabakh and Armenia do not agree with such a definition.
According to Spokesperson of President of Nagorno-Karabakh Davit
Babayan, “the report is imperfect, and not deeply studied.” “It is
necessary to hold a deep examination for making such a conclusion,
something which has not been done in Karabakh; and I believe this
estimation is given for some geopolitical purposes,” Babayan told
ArmeniaNow.

All Armenians in the diaspora
are quite familiar with the sadness, grief, suffering, exile and
relocation of those who escaped the Genocide. Here
in the US, drawing from lessons and experiences from our past, we
developed a value system, making us obedient to law and order, love of
education, rewards of hard work and blessings of freedom. As a
consequence, we have been extremely proud citizens of America. Next to
the Holy Bible, the greatest treasure we possess is the document that
proclaims us American citizens.

We also forgot our homeland of
Armenia and by all accounts and means, have always helped her. Long
before Turkish occupation and the Genocide, the Soviet regime and the
great earthquake of 1988, every Diasporan Armenian gave support, love,
talent, time and treasure to the precious homeland. When Armenia
declared independence some 20 years ago, it was a most thankful moment
of prayer, pride and joy for us all. With foremost and firmest promise,
we determined to help the homeland in every way possible to ensure her
security, health and progress.

The people of Armenia, in turn,
were deeply appreciative of our help. They demonstrated honest
appreciation, deep love and heartfelt admiration for all that we did
and still do, to improve their lot. Diasporan Armenians who visited the
homeland experienced greatest warmth, deep love and fellowship and
never forgot this most unique experience.

Since the election of Serge
Sargisian as president of Armenia, unprecedented and somewhat
questionable practices were sought by him and his cabinet to further
solidify relations with Diasporan Armenians. The government started to
shower some leaders, philanthropists and wealthy Armenians in the
diaspora with royal banquets, citations, honors and medals. His
government even created a new position of Commissioner For
Armenia-Diaspora Relations, who traveled across the Armenian world,
extolling us to love Armenia more, give more, care more and promise
never to forget the homeland. Not satisfied with all these and to
further offer gloss and flattery to diaspora, the president of Armenia
is offering dual citizenship to certain Diasporan Armenians of his
choosing. The who and why is still obscure and highly questionable. The
very idea of dual citizenship is divisive, misguided and totally
absurd. This idea, or practice, should be buried in the deepest pit in
Armenian soil and never see daylight again.

Unfortunately,
this is not all. Lo and behold, the president of Armenia is
considering restructuring the constitution of Armenia to include a
number of Diasporan Armenians as members of parliament. This
misbegotten and misguided concept seems not only unprecedented, but
ridiculous. Is it to satisfy the ego of some Diasporan Armenians, who
receive this honor? There must be a thousand-and-one questions regarding
this scheme and before any more time is spent on it, it should join
the same pit and never see sunrise or sunset again. President Serge
Sargisian and his governing body are rushing from the ridiculous to the
sublime and spending precious time to seduce Diasporan Armenians.

It is tragic, disturbing and sad
to read or hear of demonstrations, protests, hunger strikes, discord
and chaos in Armenia. Are we to assume that our beloved homeland is
becoming like a kite whose line has been cut off? Truth, stark naked
truth, demands that good government work for the governed and abandon
all schemes, pretense and misrule.

As
sure as I am that God’s sun breaks into a hundred million sapphires
over Armenian Lakes, and that any Diasporan Armenian visiting Armenia
feels he or she has stepped on the earth of God’s Eden of Genesis, that
sure I am that all Diasporan Armenians — some eight million of us —
will love more, do more, sacrifice more for homeland Armenia, if the
president of Armenia and his governing body make more effort, put more
passion, zeal and dedication and eliminate disunity, discord and
especially, all dramatics.

Nubar Dorian is former co-chair of the Armenian Assembly in Washington DC.

The
high-speed maneuvers off the coast of Baku similar to those Petty
Officer 2nd Class Mike Jensen said special warfare combat crewman
would use to evade enemy fire--highlighted a visit here by
participants in the 2004 Joint Civilian Orientation Conference.
Spinning "donuts" in the Caspian Sea aboard special warfare rigid
inflatable boats provided a thrilling introduction to Navy special
operations for a group of U.S. civilian leaders here June 9.

The
U.S. civilians' visit here was part of their whirlwind visit this
week to military sites to observe U.S.military operations and
meet the men and women who carry them out. The conferees, from
business, academia and local governments throughout the United
States got a close-up view of cooperative training between U.S.
Navy SEALS and their Azeri counterparts.

According
to Army Brig. Gen. Thomas Csrnko commander of Special Operations
Command Europe, the joint combined exercise is the part of an
ongoing program to promote cooperation and understanding between
the two countries' militaries. This was the third three-week
training session between U.S. Navy SEAL Team 2's Hotel Platoon and
Special Boat Team 20 from Little Creek Amphibious Base, Va., and
the Azeri Navy's 641st Special Warfare Naval Unit, headquartered
here.

Capt. 1st Rank
Zaur Kaziyev, director of Azeri Naval Intelligence, told
conference participants the training is "a big step forward" for
Azerbaijan as it sets its sights on qualifying for NATO membership.
The country currently participates in the Partnership for Peace
program, which helps prepares countries meet NATO requirements. "This
training forges friendships and enhances cooperation between
Azerbaijan and the United States," Kaziyev said. "I hope to see more
of it in the future."

Increased
cooperation between the two countries is critical, explained
Crsnko, as Azerbaijan gains strategic importance and becomes
increasingly important to the stability of Eurasia. A pipeline that
will transport oil from the country's largely untapped offshore
reserves to Turkey is expected to be completed next year, and a
gas pipeline is also under construction.

Petty
Officer Nick Rappo said he's encouraged by the skill and
motivation he's witnessed among the Azeri SEALS participating in
the combined training qualities Csrnko said will become critical
for them to protect their country's pipelines. "These guys are
highly motivated and extremely eager to learn," Rappo said. "We've
built a rapport and established a strong working relationship."

During
their visit to the 641st Special Warfare Unit's training
facility, U.S. civilian leaders witnessed snapshots of the
cooperative training, including close-quarter combat drills and a
stress course that requires shooters to race the clock as they
move over, around and even under obstacles while engaging
targets. The civilians also got the opportunity to live-fire U.S.
special operations weapons, handle both U.S. and Azeri weaponry
and communications equipment, and chat with the SEALS about their
mission.

Jim
Schloeman, president of the Transport Museum Association in St.
Louis, Mo., called the opportunity to observe the training and ride
in a rigid inflatable boat "awesome." "But it's really these guys
who are awesome," he said. "I'm dazzled by these guys. I'm
impressed that they're so unassuming, while it's obvious they have
supreme confidence in their ability to do their jobs. That's
pretty incredible."

Barbara
Kellerman, director of research at Harvard University's Kennedy
School of Government, called it "really stunning" to see the
caliber of the Navy SEALS working with the Azeri Navy. Kellerman
said her participation in the Joint Civilian Orientation Conference
has opened her eyes to the magnitude of the U.S. military mission
around the world. "I've never been as struck by the reach of the
American military," she said.

But
after visiting Navy SEALS here, Army National Guardsmen in
Bosnia, and airmen at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, and Andrews Air
Force Base, Md., Kellerman said she's particularly impressed by
the professionalism of the U.S. armed forces as a whole
something she said much of the American public doesn't fully
appreciate. "A trip like this gives you a good appreciation of the
armed forces both their reach and quality," agreed Carlos
Saladrigas, chairman of Premiere American Bank in Miami. "It's
been a truly incredible experience."

MPRI,
Inc., Alexandria, Va., is being awarded a $19,000,000
not-to-exceed firm-fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract to
provide a laser marksmanship device/system to meet the training
needs in basic rifle marksmanship and preliminary marksmanship
instruction for the U.S. Army, U.S. Army Reserve, U.S. Army
National Guard and the Governments of Columbia and Azerbaijan.
In addition, this contract provides for new equipment training
and total system performance responsibility type warranty for up
to three years per device. This contract combines purchases for
the U.S. Army ($5,707,000; 92 percent) and the Governments of
Columbia ($631,550; 7 percent) and Azerbaijan ($86,418; 1 percent)
under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed
in Alexandria, Va., and is expected to be completed in September
2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current
fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The
Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, Fla.,
is the contracting activity (N61339-07-D-0007).

The Sunday Times: British special forces carried out secret trainings in Azerbaijan

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office paid for the SAS to train
Azerbaijan’s special forces in an effort to gain influence with the
hardline ex-Soviet regime, the British Sunday Times writes. According to a leaked document seen by The Sunday Times, members of the
UK’s elite fighting force taught their counterparts sniper skills and
how to storm buildings as part of a six-week training mission. "The paper says one of the aims of the deployment in 2006 — codenamed
Operation Lanark — was to “enhance” the FCO’s standing in the central
Asian republic,” the article reads. The article notes that western politicians have long been keen to court
Azerbaijan and Ilham Aliyev, its president, because of the vast oil and
gas reserves beneath the Caspian Sea. “But human rights groups have accused Aliyev’s government of seeking to
silence opposition by arresting and imprisoning dozens of political
activists on bogus charges,” The Sunday Times reports.

The
director of the Central Intelligence Agency, General David Petraeus
paid an unannounced two-day visit to Ankara to discuss deepening
instability in Syria, the joint fight against terrorism and closer
cooperation on pressing regional issues “in coming months.” David
Petraeus, the CIA chief, held meetings with top Turkish officials both
yesterday and on March 12, the Hürriyet Daily News learned. Petraeus
met with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan Tuesday and his Turkish
counterpart, Hakan Fidan, head of the National Intelligence
Organization (MIT), the previous day.An
official from the U.S. Embassy said that Turkish and Amerian
officials discussed “more fruitful cooperation on the region’s most
pressing issues in the coming months.” Turkish officials said Erdogan
and Petraeus exchanged views on the Syrian crisis and anti-terror
fight. The officials further discussed an intelligence-sharing
mechanism launched in 2007.Petraeus’
visit coincided with that of Kofi Annan, the United Nations and Arab
League’s special envoy to Syria. Though both officials stayed in the
same hotel in Ankara, there was no confirmation of a potential meeting
between the two. Annan, who is trying to push the Syrian leadership to
end its measures against anti-government rebels, is the latest
international figure to have met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

A
leaked US diplomatic cable exposes Azerbaijan's contact with the
Israeli spy agency, Mossad, and security agreements reached between the
two sides, Press TV reported. The document was sent from the United
States embassy in Baku on February 16, 2007, Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz
wrote on Sunday. It says that Azeri President Ilham Aliyev's security
adviser had met with Mossad representatives as well as the then-Israeli
Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh. It also highlights a meeting
between Aliyev and Israel's former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in
January that year during the World Economic Forum in Davos. The cable
also says that the two sides signed two security agreements. In 2008,
Azeri daily Yeni Musavat cited a political analyst at the University
of Washington's Institute for Middle East Studies as pointing out
“extensive covert and overt preemptive cooperation in security,
intelligence and military areas between Azerbaijan and the Israeli
intelligence services, Mossad” in the ex-Soviet republic. He also
referred to installation of “highly-advanced satellite espionage
equipment on the Azeri soil, wiretapping centers in frontier areas,
eavesdropping centers in the Caspian Sea and continuous training of
Azeri intelligence and security agents in Israel” as instances of the
collaboration.

The United States currently has 70 type B61-12 tactical nuclear bombs
at its airbase in İncirlik in the southern province of Adana, according
to daily Vatan. Vatan acquired the information from a report by
Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen that was published on the
"Atomic Scientists Bulletin" website, revealing an inventory of the
nuclear weapons the U.S. military keeps in Turkey. Number of warheads
decreased from 90 in 2001.Between 10 and 20 of the 70 nuclear
warheads at İncirlik were designed to be delivered to their targets by
Turkish warplanes, according to the report. The 142nd fighter/bomber
squadron of the Turkish Air Forces, nicknamed the "Gazelles," was
assigned the task of delivering the nuclear ordnances. The squadron
consists of F-16A/B warplanes. The U.S. military needed a certain
warplane type that is different than those stationed at the İncirlik
airbase in order to deliver the remaining 50 warheads, the report by
Norris and Kristensen said.The Turkish state, however, has
declined to allow the U.S. military to deploy the said aircraft at
İncirlik. U.S. warplanes would need to land at İncirlik from another
location, equip the nuclear warheads and then fly to their targets,
according to the report. Turkey's refusal to station nuclear-capable
U.S. warplanes on its soil prevented İncirlik from acquiring a "full
NATO position" status. This was a unique case among NATO bases, the
report said.New warheads arrive 2017 The report
indicated that the B61-12 nuclear warheads currently deployed at
İncirlik would be changed with the new B61-3/4 warheads. Former Turkish
Air Force Commander Gen. Ergin Cilasun was quoted as saying that
"Turkey's nuclear strike duty within NATO has ended" in 2001.

Azerbaijan Makes Massive Israeli Weapons Purchase - But Not Because of Iran

Azerbaijan
has agreed to buy $1.6 billion in weapons from Israel, a massive deal
that is likely Azerbaijan's largest single arms purchase ever. The
deal will include drones, anti-aircraft and missile defense systems,
Israeli officials have told news agencies. The deal would be almost equal to Azerbaijan's stated 2012 defense budget
of $1.7 billion (though will certainly be spread out over many years).
The timing of the deal is misleading: regardless of the ongoing
ratcheting up of tension between Israel and Iran, and increasing attention
to Israel's intelligence activities in Azerbaijan, these weapons are
destined to be used not against Iran, but against Armenia, which
controls the breakaway Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno Karabakh. Though
it's tempting to think otherwise. The AP reports:

Israeli
defense officials Sunday confirmed $1.6 billion in deals to sell
drones as well as anti-aircraft and missile-defense systems to
Azerbaijan, bringing sophisticated Israeli technology to the doorstep
of archenemy Iran. The sales by state-run Israel Aerospace Industries
come at a delicate time. Israel has been laboring hard to form
diplomatic alliances in a region that seems to be growing increasingly
hostile to the Jewish state. Its most pressing concern is Iran's
nuclear program, and Israeli leaders have hinted broadly they would be
prepared to attack Iranian nuclear facilities if they see no other way
to keep Iran from building bombs... As Iran's nuclear showdown with
the West deepens, the Islamic Republic sees the Azeri frontier as a
weak point, even though both countries are mostly Shiite Muslim.

Are
Azerbaijan and Israel sharing intelligence about Iran? Certainly. Is
Azerbaijan going to use Israeli weapons against Iran? No chance.
Azerbaijan has nothing to gain by attacking Iran, or even by cooperating
with an Israeli attack except in the most discreet possible way. As
much as Azerbaijan has been building up its military, it's nowhere
close to being able to deal with the Iranian military, and would be
essentially helpless in the face of an Iranian retaliation. Azerbaijan's
government doesn't trust Iran, but it's fear isn't of Iran's nuclear
program, but of Iran's meddling in Azerbaijan's internal affairs. So
it has little interest in stirring up the hornet's nest that would
result from an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israel
is a valuable arms partner for Azerbaijan not because of anything
related to Iran. Rather, Azerbaijan has a lot of money, and Israel has
top-quality defense manufacturers. And Baku is restricted in what it
can buy from the U.S. because of opposition by pro-Armenia members of
Congress, plus the U.S.'s general desire not to inflame the situation
in Karabakh. And it's limited in what it can buy from Russia because of
Russia's alliance with Armenia (occasional missile defense sales notwithstanding). Israel has no such concerns. An excellent Wikileaked U.S. diplomatic cable lays out the strong, but mostly quiet, alliance between Tel Aviv and Baku, including in the defense sphere:

Through
its close relations with Israel, Azerbaijan gets a level of access to
the quality weapon systems it needs to develop its army that it can
not obtain from the U.S. and Europe due to various legal limitations,
nor from its ex-Soviet suppliers, Belarus and Ukraine. Where other
Western nations are reluctant to sell ground combat systems to the
Azerbaijanis for fear of encouraging Azerbaijan to resort to war to
regain NK and the occupied territories, Israel is free to make
substantial arms sales and benefits greatly from deals with its
well-heeled client. In September 2008 ) again in a little-publicized
affair ) the GOAJ signed an extensive agreement with the Israeli Defense
Ministry providing for three Israeli companies to provide mortars,
ammunition, rocket artillery and radio equipment. The company "Soltam"
got the contract to provide mortars and ammunition, "Tadiran
Communications" will provide radio gear, and Israeli Military Industries
will provide the rockets. IMI sells a range of rocket artillery and
accessories ranging from upgrade kits for Soviet vintage BM-21
&Grad8 122mm systems, guidance packages for 122mm-300mm rockets and
launch vehicles for up to 300mm rockets. It was not clear what exactly
the Azerbaijanis bought, as the deal was simply described as being
worth "hundreds of millions of dollars." Azerbaijan already operates
IMI's 122mm "Lynx" multiple-launch rocket system, which it mounts on a
KAMAZ 63502 heavy truck.

Israel and Azerbaijan also have been cooperating extensively on drones -- like the one that was shot down or crashed
in Nagorno Karabakh in September. But this would be a big jump from
previous levels of weapons sales. And it's Armenia, not Iran, that
should be afraid.

Azerbaijan
is hoping to finalize a deal with the U.S. Export-Import (Ex-Im)
Bank, a U.S. government agency, to finance a multi-million dollar
satellite financing project. The loan will afford Azerbaijan’s
Ministry of Communication and Information Technologies the needed
funds to purchase an advanced satellite, ground control equipment, and
secure the necessary training. A U.S. supplier, Orbital Sciences
Corporation (Orbital) of Dulles, Va., has been contracted for the
project. Armenian entities fear the new satellite’s use will extend to
military applications, threatening neighboring Armenia and the
Nagorno Karabagh Republic.

Azerbaijan’s
Communication Ministry claims the satellite, dubbed Azerspace, will
be used for the purpose of commercial telecommunications by one of its
agencies, the International Relations and Accounting Center (IRAC).
It says the satellite will provide telecommunications and broadcasting
services for the Republic of Azerbaijan, with its leftover capacities
servicing customers in Africa and Central Asia. However, Armenian
entities have expressed concern over its possible military use.
Azerbaijan’s government has not shied away from aggressive language
and outright threats of war while discussing Karabagh, going as far as
calling Armenia’s capital Yerevan an ancient Azeri city.

Because
the loan amount will exceed $100 million, Ex-Im Bank needs approval
from Congress. In January, the bank’s president, Fred Hochberg,
addressed a letter to Senate President Joseph Biden summing up the
transaction description and explanation of the bank’s financing plan.
According to reports, Azerbaijan has already apportioned about $25
million to the satellite; the bank will cover the remaining $96 million
for manufacturing expenses, in addition to funds for related costs.

Recent
threats by Azerbaijan against Armenia reached a new high when Baku
announced it would shoot down civilian aircrafts flying from Armenia to
the newly renovated airport of Stepanakert in Karabagh. The airport
is due to reopen on May 9. The director of Azerbaijan’s Civil Aviation
Administration, Arif Mammadov, said the Azerbaijani government had
not authorized such flights to Karabagh. “We notified that the
airspace over Karabagh is closed. The law on aviation envisages the
physical destruction of airplanes landing in that territory,” he
reportedly told APA news agency.

U.S.
Ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza called this threat
“unacceptable,” but fell short of calling on Baku to withdraw its
warning. Meanwhile, Armenia’s President Serge Sarkisian said he would
be on the first civilian flight to Karabagh. Two weeks later, on
April 1, the spokesman for the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, Elkhan
Polukhov, reportedly said, “Azerbaijan did not and will not use force
against civil facilities, unlike Armenia, which has earned notoriety
for terror and war against the civilian population.” Nonetheless, it
is hard to dismiss a threat of that magnitude, hurled along with other
threats of a resumption of war.

Azerbaijan’s
attempts at intimidation certainly substantiate concerns from
Armenian entities that the Azerspace satellite will have military
applications if Azeri aggression escalates. Border incidents have not
subsided, with Azeri snipers targeting Armenian soldiers. Most
recently, Azerbaijan claimed that Armenian snipers killed an infant
child. On March 9, Armenia’s Defense Ministry issued a press release
denying the news, adding that the “the scribblers of the Azerbaijani
disinformation” were merely attempting to “save the image of the
country” and diverting attention from the March 5 killing of an
Armenian soldier by an Azeri sniper. It further noted that “Armenia
and Karabagh have repeatedly expressed their positive attitude to the
appeals of the international community to terminate the actions of the
snipers on the Armenian-Azerbaijani contact line, while Azerbaijan
continues to carry out its provocative actions by the means of its
snipers.”

Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev, speaking on the occasion of Novruz, said he had no doubt
Azerbaijan would “restore its territorial integrity.” He did not rule
out the use of force, noting the country “is paying serious attention
to army building.” “The ever-strengthening Azerbaijan is absolutely
confident that this issue can be resolved in any manner… There isn’t
and can’t be any other option. The Azerbaijani people and state will
never tolerate a second Armenian state on their historical lands.
Nagorno-Karabagh will never be granted independence,” said Aliyev.

The
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) has sent a letter to
the president of Ex-Im Bank and consulted with U.S. legislators
regarding the Armenian American community’s concerns and objections
regarding the Azerspace Satellite Project and its potential military
use. Sources close to Armenian authorities report that officials in
Yerevan have also raised concerns on this matter with the U.S.
government. Azerbaijan has said that it plans to launch the satellite
between July and Aug. 2012. The
Armenian Weekly has contacted both Ex-Im Bank and Azerbaijan’s Ministry
of Communication and IT for comments. Neither has responded.

A new NATO land command headquarters, restructured to streamline
costs and decision making, will be activated next week in Turkey as the
new home for planning how infantrymen from the 28-nation alliance fight
together. As the war in Afghanistan winds down, one of the prime
focuses of NATO Allied Land Command will be harnessing that war fighting
experience to ensure that the alliance doesn’t lose the lessons
learned, said the American Army officer commanding the new headquarters
in Izmir, Turkey. Coming off more than a decade at war, the level
of “interoperability” among NATO members is at an all-time high, Lt.
Gen. Frederick “Ben” Hodges, said.

“My job will be to maintain
that level of interoperability,” Hodges said. “You’ve got to retain this
experience, and a lot of that resides in the noncommissioned officer
corps.”

Following an activation ceremony on Friday in Izmir,
Allied Land Command headquarters will formally assume the
responsibilities of Force Command Heidelberg, Germany, and Force Command
Madrid, Spain, which are being deactivated as part of NATO’s
transformation. A similar merger of Air Command headquarters formerly in
Turkey with one in Germany is taking place at Ramstein Air Base. The
Allied Land Command is responsible for ensuring readiness of NATO
forces, conducting land operations and synchronizing land force command
and control.

Hodges said he intends to discuss with his alliance
counterparts ways to bolster the role of the enlisted force in their
respective militaries and emphasize the advantages of putting “more and
more responsibility on NCOs.” While the U.S., Germany and the
United Kingdom have a long tradition of well-developed NCO corps, not
all allied militaries have a history of pushing significant decision
making power onto the enlisted ranks.

Another
area of focus for Hodges is lobbying for a U.S. policy
change that currently limits tours in Izmir to one-year unaccompanied
missions for U.S. personnel. To ensure the U.S. can attract the best
troops to the command, tours in Izmir should become accompanied and
extended like other alliance members’ tours, according to Hodges. “The
current policy hurts our effectiveness,” said Hodges. “I think it
marginalizes the American contribution to some extent.”

After
long separations from family during more than a decade of war fighting,
some troops also could opt against enduring another separation for an
assignment in Izmir, Hodges said. As a result, “all that
experience isn’t taken advantage of,” Hodges said. “And frankly it is
hard to explain to other countries.” The proposal is currently being
considered by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Hodges said.
Meanwhile,
Hodges said he hopes to develop an exercise that would bring together
allies in a rugged environment to test their logistical and
communication abilities.

For NATO reaction forces to be effective, “we’re going to have to ramp up some of our training,” he said. While
NATO may not have the resources to bring back something on the massive
scale of the Cold War-era Reforger exercise, ground troops would benefit
from getting together for a major logistics event, Hodges said. “You’ve
got to apply rigor to truly test logistics.”

The
transformation
of NATO’s Land Command is just one part of a 2011 NATO decision designed
to streamline the alliance’s overall command structure. Once fully
implemented, it will result in a 30 percent reduction in manpower,
taking Allied Command Operations from 13,000 personnel to about 8,800,
according to NATO. The new Land Command will have about 350 people, down
from roughly 800, Hodges said. Establishing the headquarters in Turkey —
home to NATO’s second largest military, makes good strategic sense,
Hodges said.

“Turkey’s
location from a geographic standpoint — adjacent to the Middle East,
nearly adjacent to Russia — it’s an important location,” Hodges said.
“It sends a signal not only to Turkey and the rest of the alliance. It
sends a signal to the other neighbors.”

Vafa Guluzade: Armenian would reach Kura River in 1994 [if it were not for the West’s support of Baku]

Former
advisor to Azerbaijani president Heydar Aliyev Vafa Guluzade said
that the Armenian troops would have occupied major part of Azerbaijan
in 1994, if it were not for the West’s support of Baku. Guluzade said
in an article published by Yeni Musavat paper and placed on
Caucasus-Online website that the oil factor was the decisive one in
the 1994 agreement on ceasefire in Karabakh. Otherwise, the Armenian
troops would have reached Kura River and Kurdamir in the central part
of Azerbaijan, what would have jeopardized Azerbaijan’s existence as a
state. “Only the interest of the U.S. towards Azerbaijan prevented
implementation of these plans,” said Guluzade. He believes that energy
resources and transit opportunities of Azerbaijan have secured the
West’s interest towards the country, what has protected the country’s
independence. “Azerbaijan’s independence would have been formal, if it
were not for the American interests. Right the oil factor has secured
Azerbaijan’s importance for the western states. Oil, gas and transit
potential of Azerbaijan increase its role for the West and allow
withstanding Russia,” Guluzade said, adding that greater integration
with the West would only strengthen Baku’s international positions.

Although
there is still more than a year to go until the next parliamentary
election, opposition parties in Armenia are already calling their
followers onto the streets. There is plenty of popular dissatisfaction
with the status quo, driven by rising prices and widespread poverty.
But experts say the scope for channelling that into real change is
limited by Armenia’s difficult relationships abroad, which its current
leaders can always cite as justification for tough controls at home.

Armenia is still officially at war with Azerbaijan, and its troops
garrison the self-proclaimed republic of Nagorny Karabakh, so ruling
politicians can play the national security card if their authority is
threatened. This has allowed them to fend off demands for democratic
reforms. The government’s authoritarian tendencies, and its insistence
on supporting Karabakh, has won support from big businesses keen to
keep their monopolies safe from the Azerbaijani and Turkish competitors
who might flood in if a peace deal was signed.

Opposition parties seeking to harness popular resentment of the
government believe there is a limit to what people will put up with in
the name of national security. “One fine day, a people who have nothing
to lose and who have been driven to extreme suffering, might cease to
care about the views of opinion of parliament, and even about
Karabakh,” Armenian National Congress, ANC, leader Levon Ter-Petrosyan
told a rally of supporters last month.

Experts say, however, that most people are not prepared to abandon
their fellow-Armenians in Karabakh, and fear a possible repeat of the
conflict with Azerbaijan. This plays into the government’s hands. “It’s
clear the Armenian public has a keen sense of the danger of new war
with Azerbaijan. That means that both the public and the opposition are
more restrained than they might be], and that citizens have to opt for
political stability over democratisation in many areas,” Garik Keryan,
head of politics in Yerevan State University’s international relations
faculty, said.

Commentators say the government tolerates political freedoms as long
as they do not interfere with its grip on power, while the opposition
movement remains divided among competing personalities. People who
attend opposition protests are often there because they are against the
government rather than actively drawn to the opposition.
Ter-Petrosyan’s ANC fails to make much ground because he alienated many
people in his time as Armenian president in the 1990s.

“Look what this government has driven me to. I have a law degree and
I’m driving a taxi. They’re forcing people to team up with Levon,”
Artur, a 29-year-old Yerevan resident said. “I remember the days of
Levon’s government – it was terrible then. But what else can you do?
These politicians are just humiliating us.”

Ter-Petrosyan has ruled out a swift attempt to win power, comparing
his political strategy to a game of chess. That has led many analysts
to argue that he is not interested in changing the political set-up
radically, just in putting himself and his followers at the head of it.
Political battles in Armenia are often more about competing individuals
than different ideologies.

“The ANC probably a few tens of thousands of supporters, and the
Heritage party has fewer, since it isn’t as well-organised,” public
relations expert Samvel Martirosyan said. “Heritage more closely
resembles a collection of individuals.”

The divisions among opposition groups were graphically evident on
March 17, when Ter-Petrosyan was taking part in a protest meeting in
central Yerevan and went past Heritage leader Raffi Hovhannisyan
without acknowledging the fact that the latter had been staging a
hunger strike for the past two days. Arman Vardanyan, chairman of the
Union of Young Politicians of Armenia, said recent remarks made by
Ter-Petrosyan, 66, might indicate he was considering stepping down as
ANC leader. But finding a replacement of similar standing would be
difficult.

“Ter-Petrosyan was making it plain he didn’t intend to stand in the
next [2013] presidential election. But in my opinion, no newcomer is
going to be able to present a serious challenge to the current
president, Serzh Sargsyan,” Vardanyan said.

He predicted that the ANC would win around 25 per cent of the seats in
parliament in the May 2012 election, while the Heritage Party and
Dashnakutsyun, a party now in opposition but formerly part of the ruling
coalition, would probably struggle to surpass the five per cent
threshold needed to gain any seats at all. The result, Vardanyan said,
would be that the ruling coalition would maintain its grip on power,
and there would be little progress towards a more democratic system.

Keryan ascribes Armenia’s failure to build a more open political
system in the two decades since independence to economic problems, the
Karabakh war and its legacy of isolation in the region, and the
continuing influence of Russia. “For 20 years, Armenia has seen its
security as depending on its strategic partnership with Russia,” he
said. “This could change only if there were major geopolitical changes
in the region, and those changes haven’t happened.”

Last year, the two countries agreed to extend the stay of Russian
troops in Armenia. An official strategy paper on national security
reaffirms that a continued Russian presence in the South Caucasus is
crucial for Armenia. While the document also talks about greater
cooperation with NATO members, most analysts say the authorities would
never stray too far from Moscow.

Meanwhile, a rapprochement with Turkey which has emerged over recent
years appears to have ground to a halt. With no change to the external
environment, observers say there is little impetus to move away from
the current system dominated by a small political elite and by
oligarchs with vested economic interests. “There is a privileged caste
which is not only able to bypass the law but which uses the state to
pursue its own ends,” Arman Rustamyan, a member of parliament from the
opposition Dashnakutsyun party, said.

Hovsep Khurshudyan, an expert from the Armenian Centre for National
and International Studies, said that despite the government’s declared
intention of pursuing reforms, “the economy remains in the hands of a
few families which also have political influence”. “The government is
unable to force the big oligarchs to pay taxes, so it’s forced to place
the whole tax burden on small and medium-sized businesses and on
ordinary citizens, who will soon refuse to put up with this, or will
emigrate,” Khurshudyan added.

Vazgen Manoukyan, who heads of the Public Council, a government
advisory body set up by President Sargsyan in 2009, told IWPR that while
Armenia had a democratic constitution, there were problems in practice
with elections, freedom of speech and the judicial system. “The
parliamentary and presidential elections of 1990 and 1991 were
democratic, but 1995 and 1996 saw a huge step backwards, and the
tradition of electoral fraud has continued since then, albeit with some
modification,” he said.

Manoukyan said free speech was marred by the removal of the A1+ TV
channel from the airwaves some years ago, the judicial system was far
from perfect, and economic domination by the oligarchs had curbed both
market competition and the growth of democratic institutions.

Ambassador Djerejian: An Illustrious US Diplomat Tarnishes Own Reputation

On
Friday October 5 Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian presented a
lecture in Los Angeles titled “Arab Awakening, The Turkish Role in The
Region and The Future of Armenians in the Middle East”. Nearly 500
Armenian Americans attended the event organized by Armenian General
Benevolent Union (AGBU) Asbeds.

Holding himself true to his principle “as a diplomat to think twice
before saying nothing,” Amb. Djerejian talked for over 50 minutes
without making important revelations on the current situation in the
Middle East and Syria in particular. He went on to narrate the
situation in the Middle East by delivering certain details with
eloquence, mesmerizing his audience. He also shared anecdotal stories
during his tenure as US Ambassador in Syria.

However on the 56th minute as he shifted his focus to the Caucasus
region, he dropped the nuclear bomb on his Armenian American audience
when he claimed that 2014 is a potentially deadly deadline for Armenia
and Armenians worldwide imposed by Azerbaijan. He sternly cautioned
Diaspora Armenians about the so-called “Azerbaijan deadline” for
political settlement of the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict by 2014 “or
else” face the dismal possibility of a new war. He tersely warned that a
formidable military buildup by Azerbaijan spelled trouble for Armenia,
and that the war this time “may not be as favorable” to Armenians as the
first war. Many members of Southern California Armenian American
community were concerned with his promotion of fear among Diaspora
Armenians on the ‘dire’ consequences of a new war with Azerbaijan.

His lecture also agitated several members of the audience who were
disturbed by his pro-Azeri claims that Armenians are ‘occupying’ lands
that “belong” to Azerbaijan.

Before making such anti-Armenia and anti-Artsakh declarations, that
the lands around Artsakh (Karabagh) are ‘occupied’, Amb. Djerejian
should investigate for himself the true identity of the territories in
lower Artsakh (Karabagh). His research will reveal the undeniable fact
that the borders of Armenian Territory of Artsakh encompassing both
mountainous and lowland Artsakh run from western border of contemporary
Armenia to Kura River to the east of mountainous Artsakh; and from
Gantsak (“Gendje” under Azeri rule) just north of Shahumian in the north
all the way to the current Iranian border in the south.

Under infamous Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, the Territories of
Artsakh and Nakhitchevan were carved out of then newly Sovietized
Republic of Armenia and were ‘gifted’ to then newly sovietized
Azerbaijan in early 1920’s thus completing ‘stalinization’ of Armenian
territories. Artsakh Liberation War of 1988-1994 facilitated the
reversal of that process which can be appropriately labeled
‘de-stalinization.’

He also underlined how Turkey is fast-becoming a regional super
power. Then he expressed support for Armenian-Turkish reconciliation and
normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey with “honorable
terms” for Armenians on critical issues. But he did not elaborate on the
issues. For a moment the former U.S. Ambassador sounded more like an
Ambassador of Azerbaijan or Turkey rather than a veteran diplomat
representing United States as an honest broker in Caucasus.

During the question-and-answer period, they caught him off-guard by
presenting pointed questions such as whether Armenians in Artsakh should
pursue or give up self-determination as opposed to capitulating to
Azeri demands to settle for autonomy within Azerbaijan. The parade of
inquisitive and intelligent questions reflected deep Armenian-American
concerns for Armenia and Artsakh as Amb. Djerejian backtracked and
modified his position to come across as a more ‘balanced’ diplomat.

Amb. Djerejian pointed out the proliferation of “ism”s such as
“extremism” and “terrorism” in today’s world. Interestingly, his
position on vital Armenian American issues has illustrated that he is
influenced by petroleum interests, and is an adherent of “petrolism.”

A well-respected writer and political observer David Boyajian of
Belmont, MA recently wrote: “Djerejian, whose parents were Genocide
survivors, is a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Syria. He is now
the Founding Director of the James A. Baker III Institute in Houston.
The Institutes namesake is James Baker. He is a former Secretary of
State and an Armenian genocide denier, as is Madeline Albright, an
ex-officio member of the Institute. Its Board of Advisors is filled
with current and former executives of Chevron, Marathon Oil, Shell Oil,
Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and similar corporations,
several of which also fund the Institute.Not surprisingly, human
rights are nearly invisible on the Institutes agenda. In a depressing
political presentation to Armenian Americans in Texas in 2011, Djerejian
uttered not one word of criticism of Turkey or Azerbaijan. Nor did he
mention Artsakh/Karabagh’s rights, human or otherwise. Instead, he took a
neutral position on the issue, and approvingly quoted Azeri President
Ilham Aliyev that ‘Azerbaijan has the upper hand.’ Regarding the
Genocide, Djerejian noted only that ‘the Armenian Genocide can best be
resolved within the context of improved state to state relations between
Armenia and Turkey.’”

As noted above, ironically, many of Amb. Djerejian’s comments were echoes of his own remarks of 2011 in Texas.

Similarly, the following comments that were presented in 2011 in
Texas are almost identical to his observations made in Los Angeles:
“Armenia must look at current trends in the region. The Russian-Georgia
conflict destabilized the Caucasus region and beyond. Russia is
asserting itself in the “near abroad.” While Armenia’s relations with
Russia will remain very important, Armenia must avoid becoming
over-dependent on Russia. Turkey is looking westward, seeking to be part
of the European Community, while strengthening its ties in the Middle
East and Central Asia and improving its relationship with the United
States. Georgia and Azerbaijan are actively pursuing stronger relations
with the West. Iran’s future direction remains problematic, but it is a
major regional player. Increasingly, change in Iran is not a question of
if, but of when.Iran’s policies will have important implications for
Armenia, a neighboring border country. Armenia’s relations with the
United States are very important and involve interaction on issues such
as non-proliferation and border security, international narcotics, money
laundering and the trafficking in persons, and the development of
democratic institutions and sustainable economic growth. Washington also
appreciated Armenia’s support in Iraq. Thus, the promise for Armenia’s
security and prosperity rests with following the major trends toward
regional and international integration. Armenia can no longer risk being
“the odd man out.” Indeed, Armenia should rediscover and reaffirm its
historic role as a bridge between the North and South, and the East and
West.”

While
sounding genuinely concerned with Armenia’s and Armenians’
future, Mr. Djerejian trashed Armenia’s performance as a viable state.
Under succeeding US administrations of the last few decades, U.S.
State Department has been siding with oil-producing dictators such as
Pres. Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan at the cost of trampling upon the human
rights of people like Armenians of Artsakh (Karabagh). By doing so, US
administrations risk exposing themselves to the ire of international
public opinion in Middle East, the Caucasus and elsewhere.

Abundance
of social and diversified mass media has helped the masses unmask this
American double standard. It is obvious that he is not a champion of
human rights for Armenians
of Artsakh. But he could have at least steered clear of making
anti-Artsakh (Karabagh) Armenian pronouncements by respecting his
diplomatic rule of ‘thinking twice before saying nothing;’ and by
declining to unfairly agree with Azeri false claims that Armenians “are
occupying” lands in Azerbaijan.

Ambassador Djerejian noit only did not alleviate Armenian American
concerns on U.S. State Department being a dishonest broker in Asia Minor
and Caucasus in regards to Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azeri issues,
but he also ended up tarnishing his own reputation as an illustrious US
Diplomat.

Armenia
is currently not eligible for receiving additional U.S. economic
assistance under a program designed to reward good governance and
reforms around the world, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch said on
Friday. She said the approaching parliamentary and presidential
elections in the country will be an opportunity for the Armenian
government to improve its democracy and human rights record and thus
again qualify for the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) program.

The
U.S. government approved $236 million worth of MCA assistance to
Armenia in 2006 to finance a rural development plan submitted by
Yerevan. In June 2008, Washington scrapped a $67 million segment of the
aid package, which envisaged the reconstruction of hundreds of
kilometers of rural roads. The decision was widely attributed to a
disputed presidential election held in February 2008 and a harsh
government crackdown on the Armenian opposition that followed it.The
aid cut did not affect the rest of the MCA funding which is being
mainly channeled into Armenia’s battered irrigation networks. Their
ongoing refurbishment is due to be completed this September.
Yovanovitch and Armenian Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian visited on
Friday the central Aragatsotn province to inspect local irrigation
canals that have been rehabilitated with MCA funds. They also met with
farmers that have received training as part of the same scheme.“We
hope that this program has made and will continue to make a real
impact on the rural community in terms of increased wealth,”
Yovanovitch told journalists there. The U.S. diplomat made clear that
Yerevan can not apply for more MCA aid for the time being. “Perhaps at
some point in the future, there might be a possibility,” she said.
“Every year, every country is reviewed for eligibility. At this point,
Armenia is not eligible for a second compact due to where it stands on
the [MCA] indicators.”Yovanovitch specified that President
Serzh Sarkisian’s administration should, among other things, hold more
democratic elections. “As Armenia enters into an election cycle, with
parliamentary elections next year and presidential elections the year
after, there is an opportunity to boost these indicators,” she said.
“Obviously, conduct on the day of elections is an important thing but
so is freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the many other things
that go into general good governance,” she added.Yovanovitch
urged the Armenian authorities to hold free elections, respect civil
liberties and embark on other “deep and difficult” reforms in a recent
speech at Yerevan State University. In particular, she stressed the
importance of “ensuring that peaceful, lawful assemblies will not be
harassed or broken up.”

Paul Goble: Moscow Can Gain Azerbaijan as a Strategic Partner without Sacrificing Its Ties to Armenia

One
of the fundamental assumptions about Russia and the Southern Caucasus
is no longer true in the wake of the August 2008 Georgian war, an Baku
commentator says, and consequently Moscow can develop a strategic
partnership with Azerbaijan “without losing its old ally,” Armenia. In
an essay in the current issue of “Vestnik Kavkaza,” Emma Tariverdiyeva
argues that it is no longer the case that Moscow would have to sacrifice
its relations with Armenia in order to achieve a warming of ties with
Azerbaijan. Instead, she says, the Russian government can achieve good
relations with both (www.vestikavkaza.ru/analytics/politika/12374.html).

That
geopolitical change has its roots in the August 2008 war, as a result
of which the Russian-Georgian frontier was closed. That means that for
the first time, the three longest borders in the South Caucasus were
shut – the Armenian-Azerbaijani and Armenian-Turkish borders were
already closed – and that all of the players needed to take some radical
steps. Over the last 15 months, the Trend News writer says, three of
those have occurred – the development of relations between Armenia and
Turkey, the intensification of talks on Nagorno-Karabakh, and new energy
projects, all of which both reflect and further transform changed
geopolitical assumptions in that region.

For
the first time since the Cold War, she continues, Russia has been able
to “reacquire the status of one of the key regional players.” It has
expanded its contacts with Turkey, “by supporting Ankara’s plans for a
‘Stability and Cooperation Platform in the South Caucasus’” and by
backing the normalization of relations between Yerevan and Ankara. Many
observers were surprised by Russia’s rapprochement with Turkey in this
regard given that Ankara has its own agenda in the South Caucasus, one
that challenges Moscow’s position there. But Tariverdiyeva says that the
new ties are turning out to be “profitable” for both sides. On the one
hand, Turkey has “a multitude of problems in its relations with
Armenia,” given that the latter remains “an ally and partner of Moscow
in the Caucasus.” But on the other, “Russia has interests in
Azerbaijan,” which can be promoted only by a certain shift in Moscow’s
position on Armenia.

But precisely
because the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement has contributed to a certain
“cooling” in relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey, Tariverdiyeva
says, “Russia is right to use the situation in order to improve its
relations with Baku,” which has both energy resources and transportation
routes in which Moscow is vitally interested. “The only way toward a
genuine change in the situation in the South Caucasus,” however, is “the
regulation of the oldest frozen conflict in the Caucasus” –
Nagorno-Karabakh. In the past, because of its ties with Armenia, Moscow
was not prepared to push hard for this, seeing the continuation of the
status quo as bringing Russia benefits.

Now,
however, two things have changed in that calculus. After the Georgian
war, Russia very much wants to win for itself “the image of a
peacemaker,” and because Turkey won’t ratify the protocols if Yerevan
does not begin to withdraw from the occupied territories, Moscow has an
additional reason to press Armenia. By pushing Armenia to withdraw then,
the Russian government will win friends in Baku, which Moscow
ultimately wants because “Azerbaijan is the most strategically important
country in the Southern Caucasus, the geopolitical center of the region
and a territory rich with energy resources.”

Indeed,
the Trend commentator notes, Gazprom has already declared that “it
intends to purchase gas from Baku at a price three times larger than the
120 US dollars per 1,000 cubic meters that Azerbaijan had been selling
natural gas to Turkey,” something that will also solidify Russia’s
position there. While doing this, she argues, Moscow can be confident
that it will not lose its influence in Armenia. Yerevan “will never
trust Turkey as much as it trusts Moscow,” she points out. There is
simply too much history – including the events of 1915 and Armenian
actions against Turkish diplomats – for that to change anytime soon.

As
a result, Tariverdiyeva says, “Russia will be able to acquire a
strategic partner in the region [Azerbaijan] without losing its longtime
ally [Armenia].” Her conclusion may be overly optimistic, as she
herself implies, but the appearance of such arguments shows how changes
since the Georgian war are calling into question the assumptions many
still make.

All progressive humanity’ is concerned by the periodic reports about
the disappearance of this or that type of plant or animal, [but] we are
much less concerned about the disappearance of nations and
nationalities,” Armenian expert Gevork Pogosyan says. Yet, as the
post-Soviet period demonstrates, that can happen even to larger nations
that have lost population numbers as a result of declining birthrates
and increasing outmigration and assimilation (see EDM,
December 11). One such country now facing a demographic collapse is
Armenia, whose population has dropped by nearly 1.5 million since 1991
and is projected to decline by that much again over the next several
decades (Kavkazoved.info, December 6).

Such declines call into question the long-term survival of Armenians
as a nation, the director of the Yerevan Institute of Philosophy,
Sociology and Law suggests. But more immediately, they have significant
security implications given that those leaving Armenia are the most
educated portion of the population rather than the working class. And
furthermore, Armenia remains locked in a conflict with its neighbor,
Azerbaijan, over Karabakh and the other Armenian-occupied territories of
Azerbaijan. But like the other Muslim republics of the former Soviet
space, Azerbaijan is experiencing rapid population growth and is
predicted to continue to do so for some time to come.

Between 1920 and 1991, Pogosyan says, Armenia’s population rose from
880,000 to approximately five million; but after 1991, it began to lose
population and will continue to do so. In part, this reflects the
decline in the birthrate by 50 percent over that period; but to a
greater extent, it is the product of outmigration, something many
Armenians thought might be temporary but which is proving to be
permanent. “Hundreds of thousands have left, but only a handful have
returned,” Pogosyan notes. And because it is the young who are leaving
most often, the number of women in prime childbearing age groups is
falling, which will push the population down even more, perhaps to only
1.5 million by mid-century. Moreover, that population will be far
“grayer” than the current one.

Some of this reflects the real absence of opportunities in Armenia,
the Yerevan scholar argues. But part of it signifies a spiritual crisis
in which Armenians increasingly feel that they and their children have
no future in a country that is locked in what appears to be a permanent,
if undeclared, war and whose government has done little to fight
domestic corruption or crime. The authorities, meanwhile, have often
reacted with indifference to this trend or even welcomed it: One former
prime minister said that if Armenians were not leaving the country in
massive numbers, there would be a revolt at home.

If the problem is to be addressed, Pogosyan says, the government must
first admit that the problem exists, something it has not been willing
to do; and it must then adopt policies intended to change the existing
national psychology. At the same time, it must recognize that some of
the things it is doing to save the Armenian economy may be destroying
the country’s demographic future. Entering the Eurasian Economic Union,
for example, will make it even easier for Armenians to leave their
country and never return. It is already the case, he says, that there
are almost as many ethnic Armenians in Russia as there are in Armenia.

Moreover, he continues, it is not just a question of gross numbers.
If many international guest workers from Muslim republics are
low-skilled people, between 55 and 60 percent of Armenians leaving to
work elsewhere are highly trained professionals. That further depresses
the future of Armenia. And this trend gives no sign of easing. According
to research his institute has done, Pogosyan says, “up to 40 percent of
young people are set on leaving the country, either to study, for to
work, or to live there and marry. This is a very bad symptom.”

Yerevan cannot hope to stop outmigration, Pogosyan asserts, but what
it must do if the nation is to have a future is to promote “circular
migration,” in which Armenians go abroad for part of their lives and
then return to Armenia. That is the pattern in Europe, and Yerevan must
take steps to make it the pattern in Armenia as well. At the same time,
it must do more to attract Armenians from the eight-million-strong
Armenian diaspora. To date, however, Yerevan has not been doing that.
For example, he says, it has taken in only 7,000 Armenians from Syria
out of an Armenian community there of 150,000.

But the situation is even worse than those figures suggest, Pogosyan
states, because many of the Syrian Armenians who have come to Armenia
are using it as a way station until they can move to Europe or the
United States. He says he has a neighbor from Syria, a doctor with his
own clinic in Armenia. But now that neighbor is selling his clinic and
apartment and planning to move to France. He and his family “lived in
Armenia only a year, and you already cannot keep him” there. “That is
the reality” of Armenian life now; as a result, the scholar says,
“depopulation continues.”

In recent days there have been two symbolic events that run the danger
of igniting hostilities in an already tense neighborhood of the
Caucasus. On Aug. 31 a former Azerbaijan Army lieutenant, Ramil Safarov, flew back
to Baku after serving eight years in a Budapest jail for killing Gurgen
Margarian in 2004. The victim, an Armenian officer, had been a fellow
participant in a NATO Partnership for Peace exercise. Safarov hacked him
to death in his sleep with an ax.

The Hungarian government transferred the prisoner to Azerbaijan on the
understanding that he would serve out the rest of his life sentence in
his home country. But immediately upon his arrival in Baku, Lieutenant
Safarov was pardoned by President Ilham Aliyev, restored to military
duties, promoted to major, given an apartment and awarded back pay for
his time in prison. These actions drew universal condemnation from
Washington, Moscow and European governments.

Apart from the fact that such a step is an affront to basic notions of
justice and the rule of law, even more troubling is the message that it
sends to the rest of the world: that the Azerbaijani government thinks
it is acceptable to kill Armenians. Apparently, the grievances they
suffered in their defeat by Armenian forces in 1992-94 are so profound
that even murder is excusable. It is hard, then, to ask the Armenians
living in Karabakh to quietly accept the idea that the solution to their
disputed territory is for them to return to living under Azerbaijani
rule.

This one single act could undo the patient efforts of diplomats and
activists over many years to try to rebuild connections and work toward
mutual trust — without which any kind of peace settlement will be a pipe
dream.

Compounding the problem was a less significant but still noteworthy
gesture. On Sept. 3, Richard Morningstar, the new U.S. ambassador to
Azerbaijan, paid his respects to Heidar Aliyev, the deceased former
president (and father of the incumbent), by laying a wreath at his
statue in central Baku. Apparently it is standard protocol for U.S.
ambassadors to include this stop in their round of duties when arriving
in Baku. Photographs also clearly showed the ambassador bowing his head
before the monument, though a State Department spokesman later denied
this.

Mr. Morningstar’s far from empty gesture sent two wrong signals.
First, it is disheartening to Azerbaijani democratic activists to see
the United States so cravenly supporting dictatorship as a suitable form
of rule, a pattern all too familiar from U.S. policy toward the entire
Middle East.

Second, it signals to Armenia — and its principal ally, Russia — that
the United States is an unqualified backer of the Azerbaijani
government, warts and all. Strategic interests — Caspian oil, access to
Central Asia, containment of Iran — count for more than the niceties of
human rights and democratic procedure. This makes it all but impossible for Armenia to expect the United States
to act as an honest broker in the peace process. And if the United
States cannot play that role, no one else will.

Diplomacy has long revolved around such symbolic acts. In 1793, the Earl
Macartney, British ambassador to China, was thrown out of the country
when he refused to kowtow before the emperor. More recently, visits by
Japanese government ministers to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo,
commemorating the souls of warriors, have triggered protests from China
and South Korea.

By contrast, when Chancellor Willy Brandt fell to his knees before the
monument to the Warsaw Ghetto in 1970 he turned a page in German
atonement for its past atrocities. In the same spirit, Vladimir Putin
sent a clear message of reconciliation when in 2010 he knelt at the
monument to the Polish officers killed at Katyn on Stalin’s orders.What we need in the Caucasus are leaders willing to follow the examples
of Mr. Brandt and Mr. Putin, with the courage to show contrition and a
willingness to meet with their former adversary and figure out a way to
live together. We may be in for a long wait.

The Obama-Biden Administration budget released on April 11 includes a 38
percent cut in Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) economic aid to Armenia, a
proposal that, if approved by Congress, would reduce U.S. assistance to
Armenia to its lowest level since the 1988 earthquake, reported the
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

The president’s proposal of $24,719,000 in Economic Support Funds for
Armenia was dramatically less than last year’s actual economic aid
allocation of $40 million, and less than half the $50 million in FY14
aid requested earlier this year in an Armenian Caucus letter and ANCA
Congressional testimony. The White House’s proposal did, however,
maintain parity in terms of appropriated military aid to Armenia and
Azerbaijan, with International Military Education and Training (IMET)
assistance set at $600,000 and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) set at
$2,700,000.

Combining all the FY14 appropriated assistance to Armenia that the
president is proposing, including economic, military, law enforcement,
and health, his current request represents a 14 percent reduction of his
last request of Congress, as part of his FY13 budget.

“President Obama, who came into office pledging to maintain aid to
Armenia and increase bilateral trade and investment, has consistently
cut Armenian assistance programs, while failing to take any meaningful
steps to promote the growth of economic relations through investment
treaties, tax accords, trade missions, or other commonly utilized
policies and practices,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.

The administration’s budget does not include any figures for aid to
Nagorno-Karabagh, although over the past several years USAID has
allocated $2 million annually for this purpose. This level of
Nagorno-Karabagh funding is considerably less than the intent expressed
by Congress over the course of many years, including the minimum level
of $5 million approved in the House Appropriations Committee’s version
of the FY13 foreign aid bill.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday pushed for a greater Turkish role in the Nagorno Karabakh issue. While discussing the 2014 Foreign Affairs budget at the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, Kerry called Turkey a constructive regional player
in the Mideast peace process, the ongoing Syrian crisis, the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the Cyprus issue. “Through regular talks held with Washington, Ankara is assisting us
on the settlement of the two frozen conflicts — the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict [between Armenia and Azerbaijan] and the Cyprus issue. I think
Turkey will be a constructive player on these issues and we are looking
forward to maintaining constructive ties with Ankara,” Kerry said in
response to question by members of Congress. “This is like pouring fuel on the fire,” said Armenian National
Committee of America Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “Despite
Turkey’s growing anti-Armenian bias Secretary Kerry said at his
testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Ankara could
play a ‘constructive role’ in resolving that ‘frozen conflict.’”

The United States Ambassador to the OSCE, Daniel B. Baer on Thursday
praised Turkey’s role as a Minsk Group member in remarks delivered the
organization’s permanent council. “We note recent statements that have called into question Turkey’s
constructiveness as a Minsk Group member and disagree with that
assessment. Turkey has been a valuable member of the Minsk Group and has
worked cooperatively with the Co-Chairs on finding a way forward in
peace talks,” Baer said in defense of Turkey whose role was deemed as destructive
to the Karabakh talks earlier this week by Russia’s Ambassador to the
OSCE, Aleksandr Lukashevich. The Russian diplomat on Monday deplored
Turkey’s unconditional
support for Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, calling
Ankara’s pro-Azerbaijani position “destructive.”

“There
is a strict understanding that the three co-chairs [of the
OSCE Minsk Group] — Russia, France and the U.S. — carry the main burden,
as do other members of the Minsk Group,” said Lukashevich. “Turkey, by
the way, is also a member. But the leading role [in the Karabakh peace
process] is reserved for the three co-chairs.” “Therefore, attempts to
defend one of the parties to the conflict in
Nagorno-Karabakh are absolutely destructive and cannot have any
continuation,” added the diplomat. Armenian National Committee of
America Chairman Ken Hachikian responded Friday to U.S. Baer’s
statement.

“In the wake of Ambassador Baer’s recent reckless statement, it is
clear that the leadership of our State Department needs to exercise
considerably greater caution and thoughtfulness regarding officials who
encourage a direct Turkish role in the Nagorno Karabakh peace process,”
said Hachikian. “Ankara makes no secret of its pro-Baku bias, and long ago abandoned
any pretense of neutrality. Look at the facts: The Erdogan government
actively supports Aliyev’s virulent anti-Armenian positions, openly
providing military aid and training to the Azerbaijani military, while,
at the same time, blockading Armenia, contrary to international law, and
seeking to isolate Yerevan in the international arena. Turkey’s
strategy — and the international community’s unwillingness to call them
out on it — has emboldened an aggressive and intransigent Azerbaijan to
increase its attacks – leading to over 43 Armenian deaths in 2015
alone,” added Hachikian.

“Why then, do U.S. officials allow themselves to be used as props in
Erdogan’s farce, pretending that the Turkish government will – against
all evidence – play the role of some sort of impartial mediator?” asked
Hachikian.

“Why is it that U.S. leaders can’t seem to find our moral compass
when its comes to Turkey – on issues ranging from justice for the
Armenian Genocide and a peace for Syria to freedom for Nagorno
Karabakh?” emphasized Hachikian. “This Administration’s shameful legacy of endlessly caving in to
Turkish threats – at the expense of our own values and interests as a
nation – is truly a national disgrace – an embarrassment beneath the
dignity of the American people,” commented Hachikian. “Tearing down the firewall between Turkey and the Karabakh talks
would only result in adding more fuel to the fire, setting back the
cause of lasting peace,” concluded Hachikian.

Two days before Christmas, as American policymakers were settling into the holidays, Russia quietly signed a sweeping air defense agreement with Armenia,
accelerating a growing Russian military buildup that has unfolded
largely under the radar. It was the most tangible sign yet that Putin is
creating a new satellite state on NATO’s border and threatening an
indispensable U.S. ally. The buildup in Armenia has been glossed
over in Washington, despite being a key piece of Vladimir Putin’s plan
to dominate the region — along with its proxy Syria and growing military
ties with Iran. Most importantly, Armenia shares an approximately 165 mile border with Turkey, a NATO member and the alliance’s southern flank. Over the last six months — as Russia’s
war in Syria and pressure on Turkey has intensified — the flow of its
arms and personnel into Armenia has escalated to include advanced Navodchik-2 and Takhion UAV drone aircrafts, Mi-24 helicopter gunships and Iskander-M ballistic missiles. Last July, Putin ordered snap combat readiness checks in Armenia to test the ability of his forces to react to threats to Russia’s interests abroad. Earlier this month
on orders of Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu, Russia began a
massive military exercise in its “southwestern strategic direction,”
which includes Armenia. The total strength of the regional operation
included approximately 8,500 troops, 900 ground artillery pieces, 200 warplanes and 50 warships. The growing Russian military presence in
Armenia is but the latest indicator of a worrisome trend: Putin’s threat
to NATO and America’s interests in Europe.

The Armenian-Russian alliance is gaining strength

The Armenian-Russian alliance is gaining strength. Armenia currently hosts an estimated 5,000 Russian military personnel and two Russian bases. In 2010, both countries signed an agreement that extended Russia’s basing rights in Armenia by 24 years, until 2044,
and committed Moscow to supply the Armenian armed forces with “modern
and compatible weaponry and special military hardware,” according to
Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan. The 102nd Military
Base in Gyumri, Armenia — nearly 120 kilometers from the capital (and
less than 10 kilometers from the Turkish border) — has become a crucial
Russian beachhead. A similar Russian deployment on the
borders of any other NATO member state would produce an outcry of
outrage. Why are we staying silent in the face of this thinly veiled
aggression against Turkey? And why are we not speaking up against
Armenia for rolling out the red carpet for Putin’s shock troops? Turkey, after all, is a critical ally in
the global fight against ISIS and is among the only members of the
U.S.-led coalition with bases near strategic ISIS strongholds. In July 2015,
Turkey and the U.S. finalized an agreement to work cooperatively to
combat Islamic State terrorists in Syria and Iraq, allowing the U.S. to
launch air attacks from the Incirlik air base in southern Turkey against
Islamic State terrorist networks in northern Syria.

In international diplomacy, geography is everything

We ignore this threat at our peril. And
in international diplomacy, geography is everything. Armenia borders
three critical U.S. allies: Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Russian
forces currently occupy Georgian territory. Azerbaijan steadfastly
resists intimidation from Moscow and is the linchpin in our efforts to
wean Europe from dependence on Russian energy supplies. Make no mistake: The Russian military
presence in Armenia represents a dagger pointed at the heart of NATO as
the Armenia-Russian alliance strengthens. But while Moscow is rattling
its sabers, Washington remains silent. Last August, The Moscow Times
reported that President Putin told Turkey’s Ambassador to Moscow to
“tell your dictator President he can go to hell along with his ISIS
terrorists and I shall make Syria to nothing but a ‘Big Stalingrad.’”
Histrionics aside, the intent is clear. Russia views Turkey as a hostile
state and it will not back down. The picture that has emerged is
unsettling: Armenia is enabling a bad actor, while Russia is using it to
threaten our vital interests. America’s leaders must negotiate from a
position of strength. Instead, we are acquiescing to Putin’s naked show
of force. The history of the 20th century shows us that this will not end well.

Mr. Ereli is also a former deputy spokesman of the State Department. He was U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain from 2007-2011.

The Russia-Armenia alliance is threatening Turkey, a critical U.S. ally

The Feb. 21 front-page article “For Turkey, high stakes as troubles intensify” highlighted a critical development: The growing military alliance between Russia and Armenia is threatening Turkey, an indispensable U.S. ally and partner in the fight against the Islamic State. The announcement that Russia is sending a new set of fighter jets and combat helicopters to an air base only 25 miles from the Turkish border is just the latest example of this alliance. The two countries’ economic and military ties run deep, bolstered by economic and security agreements and two military bases — including one just outside the Armenian capital. Most significant, Armenia is the only country in the region that shares a border with Turkey and has Russian troops permanently stationed. Although Armenia has welcomed thousands of Russian troops and advanced weaponry, these developments seemed to have escaped the notice of U.S. officials, who were settling in for the holidays while Russia and Armenia signed a sweeping air defense agreement two days before Christmas. It’s time for Washington to assess who our real allies in the region are. Andrew Bowen, Washington: The writer is senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest.

The
Caucasus Mountains that run between the Black and Caspian Seas could
soon turn into a nuclear flash point because of dangerous saber-rattling
by Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan. Armenia has illegally claimed territory in western Azerbaijan, an assertion backed by military offensives against Azerbaijan, including a massacre of 600 citizens in 1992. Sadly now, Armenia may be taking the region to the brink of nuclear war.Armenia received the Iskander missile system from Russia last autumn, a major provocation meant to send a message to Azerbaijan
and NATO ally Turkey. This is consistent with Moscow’s policy of using
missile deployments in Eurasia and the Middle East to threaten western
interests. The
Iskander short-range ballistic missile system is designed to destroy
small targets at up to 300 miles. This means that Iskander missiles
deployed in eastern Armenia could reach targets all over Azerbaijan, including the capital of Baku. Alarmingly, Iskander missiles are capable of being fitted with nuclear warheads.As if the presence of the missiles were not a clear enough menace, Mr. Sargsyan
visited the improperly held territories and bragged that his government
possessed a “state-of-the-art, powerful striking force.” He went on to
identify potential targets in Azerbaijan — “the most important
infrastructure” — and followed up with a chilling pronouncement about
his intentions as head of the Armenian military. “If needed, the
commander in chief of the Armenian forces will without batting an eyelid
order volley fire by Iskander,” he said.This
new round of warmongering is troubling in several respects and raises
tensions in Baku and throughout the region. In addition to unnerving Armenia’s neighbors, Mr. Sargsyan’s
statements raised concerns in Washington, D.C. The Jamestown Foundation
recently held a panel discussion on Capitol Hill to address the danger
posed by Armenia’s
deployment of the Iskander missiles, writing that the new weapons
“threaten European stability, put U.S. allies at risk and potentially
violate the 1988 [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty.”Mr. Sargsyan’s
inflammatory rhetoric destroys the myth propagated by separatists that
the Armenian-seized Azerbaijani territory is an independent republic.
Rather, the region occupied Azerbaijan and is now a staging area for missiles pointed at the rest of Azerbaijan. It is also clear that Mr. Sargsyan is using the missiles as a political weapon. Armenia’s president is seeking to stir his nationalistic supporters against Azerbaijan to increase voter turnout in elections. He is rejecting bids from more sober leaders in Armenia, including former President Levon Ter-Petrossian, for a plan that would reduce tensions between the two nations.And then there’s the Russia question. Armenia is the only nation that has received the Iskander system from Russia. Why Armenia? Possibly because “the most important infrastructure” in Azerbaijan
that could be targeted by the missiles includes companies owned and
operated by Western entities, including American ones, that ensure
Europe’s energy security. Natural gas from Azerbaijan
flows by pipeline from the Caspian Sea west through Georgia and into
Turkey and Europe. Should that flow be disrupted by military conflict,
Europe would be at the mercy of Russia for its energy needs.Another
possibility: Russia might be attempting to rebuild its Soviet-era
footprint in the Lesser Caucuses as it has done in Crimea and is
attempting in Eastern Ukraine. It’s no secret that Russia and Armenia recently established a joint air defense pact. If Mr. Sargsyan’s troubling boasts about his willingness to deploy his new Iskander missile system were the only such noise coming from Armenia,
it would be worrisome enough. But in the past six months, top members
of his administration have made more than a dozen similar statements.Azerbaijan has more than twice as many people as Armenia
yet its Gross Domestic Product is nearly seven times greater. While
Armenians have watched their leaders diminish their economy, Azerbaijan has prospered. Much like North Korea, military posturing is all Armenia has left. This is a dangerous time for Azerbaijan and the entire region because of Armenia’s
reckless pursuit of offensive weapons and incendiary rhetoric.
Azerbaijanis at home and in the United States have depended on America
as a good friend and strong ally. The world can only hope that that will
continue under the new Trump administration.

•
Lloyd Green is a former staff secretary to the George H.W. Bush
campaign’s Middle East Policy Group in 1988 and served in the Department
of Justice between 1990 and 1992.

The US has
notified the Republic of Armenia (RA) government about the risk of
becoming a target of sanctions, in case of signing “substantial deals”
with Russian military industry companies, according to Haykakan Zhamanak
(Armenian Times) newspaper. “Embassy of the United States of America in Yerevan informed about this, in response to Haykakan Zhamanak newspaper’s inquiry. ‘“There was a notification to the
governments and private companies of other countries that in case of
substantial deals sealed with the Russian companies that are on the
list, sanctions may be applied. We do not discuss our sanctions in
advance. We announce these sanctions whenever there is, and if any,’ the
embassy press service noted in response to the question as to whether
Armenia could appear on the target of those sanctions, and whether
discussions on the topic are underway with the RA authorities,” wrote
Haykakan Zhamanak.

Russia to view any military threat against Armenia as threat to itself, says senior State Duma MP Konstantin Zatulin

Russia intends to fulfill its allied commitments for Armenia in the security and defense sector, Konstantin Zatulin, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee for CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration and Relations with Compatriots of the Russian parliament told a press conference in the Armenian parliament. “We have ratified the documents on the formation of the Armenian-Russian unified troops and the single air defense system. In the future Russia will also view any military threat against Armenia as a threat against itself [Russia], when it regards commitments in the framework of CSTO”, he said. He also mentioned that Russia has made conclusions after the clashes of April 2016 which were unleashed by Azerbaijan. “We are sorry that Azerbaijan didn’t find another use of Russian weapons than the violation of the ceasefire in the conflict zone. We’ve made conclusions from this all”, he said. Zatulin added that Russia has made relevant conclusions regarding the breach in balance of arms in the region and provided Armenia with modern defense measures. “I am a convinced supporter of the Armenian-Russian historical ties, and the majority of State Duma MPs share this stance”.

The Russian army keeps expending its military might and can threaten
interests of countries, which are situated next to the NATO borders.
Agreement on the creation of a joint anti-aircraft defence system with
Armenia, reinforcement of the Russian troops in this region can threaten
countries of the Alliance and their Western allies, Adam Ereli, former
deputy spokesman of the State Department, believes. He noted, that
Washington made no answer to Russia's deploying such powerful complexes
of military power and means near Armenia, and even paid no attention to
the Russian buildup of military cooperation with Iran. Beside that, the
US ponders over Russia's joining its combat capabilities with a country
that borders with Turkey - a NATO member. "Over the last six months - as
Russia's war in Syria and pressure on Turkey has intensified - the flow
of its arms and personnel into Armenia has escalated to include
advanced Navodchik-2 and Takhion UAV drone aircrafts, Mi-24 helicopter
gunships and Iskander-M ballistic missiles," Adam Ereli pointed out.
According to him, Russia prepares a new military alliance with Armenia,
which is allegedly to hit unexpectedly at the interests of the US and
NATO in the region. "The growing Russian military presence in Armenia is
but the latest indicator of a worrisome trend: Putin's threat to NATO
and America's interests in Europe," former diplomat believes. The
military alliance of Armenia and Russia continues to strengthen, and the
West cannot leave it without attention. Ereli dreams of Moscow's
dispatching its soldiers to Armenia and carrying out joint drills there
in order to 'influence' three frontier states, which are important
allies of the US, that is Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. "The Russian
military presence in Armenia represents a dagger pointed at the heart of
NATO as the Armenia-Russian alliance strengthens. But while Moscow is
rattling its sabers, Washington remains silent," Adam Ereli concluded.

Hikmet Hajizade: "Russia does not trust Azerbaijan, considering it to be a country of a different unfriendly civilization"

Day.Az interview with famous political scientist Hikmet Hajizade.

- What do you expect from official visit of Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to Azerbaijan, scheduled for July 3-4?-
Perhaps, several important intergovernmental issues will be
discussed,but the most important, what Russia is concerned about are
energy problems. Russia tries to prevent Caspian energy sources supply
to the world market via Azerbaijan bypassing Russia. Moreover, Russia
tries to possess the Caspian gas to strengthen monopolistic positions of
Gazprom in ensuring gas for Europe. Perhaps, we will be persuaded to
reject support of Georgia.- A number of experts state that
Russia is still ruled by Vladimir Putin, while Dmitri Medvedev fulfills
purely representative functions. Do you agree with this point?-
Yes, it is this way so far, but I would like to note that Putin has
once been not the sole ruler of Russia and was a representative of a
powerful grouping comprising senior officers of the FSS and
reconnaissance. Medvedev has not taken any steps, not envisioned by the
strategy of the said grouping. His speech during the economic forum in
Petersburg was in fact the repetition of the confrontation Munich speech
of Putin. But let's not hurry. Medvedev has time for demonstrating
himself as an independent politician.- Vladimir Putin's
presidency was marked with a thaw in the Azerbaijani-Russian relations.
Can we expect further closing of our countries under Dmitri Medvedev?-
Well, anyway, the relations will not worsen significantly under him,
except for any extraordinary cases. Some toughening of policy towards
Azerbaijani migrants is possible, which can be prevented by our
diplomacy.- How far can Russia go in
its loyalty to Azerbaijan and can we expect from Russia to impose
pressure on Armenia strong enough for this country to return the
occupied lands to us?- Under
the current course, laid in the mid 1990s and finally formed under
Putin, no changes are expected in the Russia's policy towards conflicts
in the Caucasus. Too much should change in Russia and in the world for
Moscow to reject support of separatism in the Caucasus.- What can Azerbaijan give to Russia in exchange for such steps as pressure on Armenia?-
Russia demands too much: to reject our independent external and energy
policy, give up developing relations with Turkey and NATO, reject
support to Georgia, join the Collective Security Treaty, allow Russian
frontier guards to guard our borders and return troops to Azerbaijan.
Unfortunately, by doing it all we will not have a guarantee that we will
get Karabakh as Russia does not trust Azerbaijan considering it to be a
part of a different unfriendly civilization. Russia strategists
consider that Azerbaijan will always dream of being with Turkey, strive
for European integration and independence from Russia.

Despite
record growth in military spending and frequently heard threats by top
officials to resume hostilities in Karabakh, Azerbaijani leadership is
said to be "terrified" by a prospect of an Armenian military attack, a
Stratfor memo made available via Wikileaks revealed. The memo was prepared by Reva Bhalla,
Stratfor's director of analysis, following her August 2010 meeting
with a source described as "Ambassador-at-large for energy security,
Czech Republic." While the official is not named in the memo, Vaclav Bartuska has been the Czech envoy on energy security for the last several years.

The
Czech official reportedly told Bhalla that "It is remarkable to what
degree Azerbaijan is under Russian influence. They are thinking about
their survival. The Azerbaijanis cannot agree to a final deal on Shah
Deniz II" natural gas field being developed in the Caspian by BP and
whose output is sought by Russia and Western energy consumers.

"When
I was in Baku recently, they showed me a 3-D topographic map of
Armenia, AZ [Azerbaijan], Nagorno [Karabakh]," the Czech related. "You
can see very clearly that once (and if) the Armenians cross over with
Russian backing, it is a flat path to Baku. The Russians told them
during the Georgia war that Georgia could just be the first stop...
pretty direct threat. The Azerbaijanis are terrified of this."

According
to press reports, in June 2010 Bartuska participated in the Baku oil
and gas conference annually organized by the Azerbaijani government.
Bhalla's memo was part of the Stratfor e-mail cache obtained last
December by internet hacking group known as the Anonymous. Last
year, speaking on the third anniversary of the Georgia war, Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev argued that the 2008 war taught parties to the
Karabakh conflict "a very serious lesson" that it was "better to
conduct endless talks" than fight even a few days of war.

And
State Department cables also released by Wikileaks made clear that in
U.S. assessment, despite the military build-up and threatening
rhetoric, Azerbaijan remains incapable of launching a successful
military campaign against Armenia.

Russian Expert: Nagorno Karabakh’s ties with Russia should be as strong as with Armenia

Nagorno–Karabakh’s ties with Russia should be as strong as with Armenia, Mikhail Alexandrov, head of the Caucasus Department of the CIS Institute in Moscow, told ARKA. Alexandrov is one of many historians, researchers and political analysts from Russia and the Caucasus taking part in an international conference in Moscow dedicated to the 200th anniversary of Gulistan Treaty The Gulistan Treaty concluded between imperial Russia and Persia in 1813 as a result of the first Russia-Persian confirmed inclusion of modern day Azerbaijan, Dagestan and Eastern Georgia into the Russian Empire.

"Nagorno-Karabakh was the first Armenian state to have joined Russia. This is recorded in the Gulistan Treaty, and to some extent Russia is more responsible for Nagorno-Karabakh than the modern-day Armenia,” Alexandrov said. According to him, this aspect of the Gulistan Treaty was voiced at the conference, but in modern politics it is not present.

"This is a very important aspect. The treaty defined the role of Russia as the main foreign power in the region. This is prescribed by the treaty. This should now be realized by all,” he said.

He added that the treaty laid the basic parameters for the existence of the Caucasus in the last 200 years, and not only of the Caucasus, but also parts of Russia's North Caucasus. He said this is why this treaty is of fundamental importance for the situation that now exists in the Caucasus and the Caspian region. He said according to some reports at the conference, the status of the Caspian Sea is also largely determined by the parameters that were laid in the Gulistan Treaty. "So, it is quite right to mark the 200th anniversary of this important event," he said.

The purpose of the conference, he said, is to emphasize the historical significance of the Gulistan Treaty, and also to consider its relevance to the current situation in the Caucasus. He said the historians and researchers are from Russia, Armenia and Russia’s republic of Dagestan. A representative of the Talysh people is expected to also make a report.

‘Unfortunately, we do not have scientists from Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijani reporter has arrived in Moscow to cover this event. In my opinion, they are even more than Armenian reporters,’ he said.

A debate today at the conference was to discuss the impact of the Gulistan Treaty on the political development of the Caucasus, including the Caspian problems, inter-ethnic relations, and the relationship of the Caucasian states and the influence of the great powers. The results of the discussions will be summarized in a newsletter that will be posted at www.materik.ru.

Russian expert: Armenia should be interested in Russian-Azeri arms deals

Russia's only goal is to avoid a new war in Nagorno-Karabakh, Head of
the Caucasus Department of the CIS Institute Sergey Mikheyev said
during a Yerevan-Moscow TV link-up on Monday. He said that both Armenia and Azerbaijan urge Russia to
sever contacts with the opposite side and to develop ties with them
only. "We cannot do this as this may cause instability in the
region. The point here is that in order to guarantee peace in the
region, Russia has to keep balance between the parties," Mikheyev said.

Director of the Public Political Studies Center Vladimir
Yevseyev said that if Russia stops selling arms to Azerbaijan, Israel,
the US or somebody else will start doing it. "So, Armenia should
be interested in Azerbaijan's buying arms from Russia as the
Russians know their arms and will be able to help the Armenians
with 'antidotes' if need be. There is no evil design in these
supplies. Russia is not going to abandon Armenia. All it wants is just
peace in the region," Yevseyev said.

It was reported on 26 May that Russia planned to supply
another ordered lot of 6 TOS-1A heavy flamethrower systems. According
to Uralvagonzavod plant, under a contract with Azerbaijan, that
country will receive 18 items of TOS-1A "Solntsegorsk." Last year,
Russian supplied the first lot of 6 systems. In addition, on 23
May, Konstantin Byrulin, Deputy Head of the Federal Services
for Military-Technical Cooperation of Russia, said Azerbaijan has
already received 100 tanks T-90C and another 100 tanks may be delivered
to Baku later, along with helicopters Mi-171 and Mi-35,
armored vehicles, light weapons, and mortar howitzers.

During
President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to Yerevan last week, Russia and
Armenia were reported to have signed a series of deals in the military
sphere, some of which were not made public. The most striking of these
agreements, however, was a protocol that extended the lease of a Russian
military base in the Armenian town of Gyumri from 25 to 49 years. The
base, officially operating since 1997, presently hosts 5,000 Russian
troops along with MiG-29 fighter jets as well as S-300 air defense
missiles.

Medvedev
maintained that the purpose of the base is to “support peace and
stability in the southern Caucasus, and the entire Caucasus region.” Yet
many analysts, those from Turkey and Azerbaijan in particular, believe
that the new deal could also be interpreted as a veiled message from
Moscow, as well as a warning, to both Ankara and Baku. According to
those subscribing to this view, the protocol is proof of the emergence
of new alliances in the region. In fact, remarks made by Armenian
authorities subsequent to the new agreement indeed strengthen such
arguments. As a case in point, President Serzh Sarksyan has gone on the
record as claiming that the base will extend the sphere of its
geographic and strategic responsibility.

The
coincidence of the recent deal with growing voices from Azerbaijan that
it might resort to force to liberate its territories under Armenian
occupation is another factor being cited in support of claims that the
alliance of the recent past between Armenia and Russia is being
consolidated again. In Ankara, however, circles close to the Turkish
government don’t share this pessimism. They say that the protocol is
another attempt by Russia to maintain the balance between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. A senior Turkish authority who shares this view maintained
that the recent move is one intended to placate the Armenian government
following rumors with regard to plans to sell high-tech weaponry to
Azerbaijan and Russia’s commitment for the resolution to the Karabakh
problem.

Another
senior Turkish figure I spoke with has suggested that I concentrate on
the economic aspect of the visit. Indeed, Yerevan has reportedly awarded
Russia with a contract to build two new reactors on the site of a
Soviet-era nuclear power plant. Moreover, arms sale is rumored to be on
the agenda as well. With a wry smile on his lips he told me, “The
Russians have become very good businessmen and have learned how to
bargain and what to sacrifice in return for economic gain.”

However,
Turkish foreign policy circles hold serious concerns that Armenia might
see this protocol as a green light from Russia to continue with a
non-conciliatory approach to ongoing peace negotiations with Azerbaijan.
A Justice and Development Party, or AKP, figure close to Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, for instance, said that Erdoğan has very
strong expectations from both President Medvedev and Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin regarding a resolution to the Karabakh problem. He
emphasized that on nearly every occasion when this issue has been
discussed with the Russians, this country's expectations of them have
been communicated with frankness. He concluded with a reminder that
without positive Russian involvement, this problem can never be solved
and that they have given firm commitments to help.

In
such a milieu, I believe it is worth wrapping up by reminding our
Russian friends of what Erdoğan is said to have frankly told the two
Russian leaders last year: “We, as Turkey, don’t want outside forces to
get involved in a problem that the regional countries should be able to
solve themselves.” What do you think? Is this a desire shared by the
Russians as well? Or in the Russian perception, are the narrow
short-term gains more important than the long-term mutual benefits?

Konstantin Zatulin: “The call of blood pushes Turkey into a conflict with Russia”

Recently,
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in his address sent to the participants
of the World Congress of Crimean Tatars has declared that Turkey will
never recognize the results of the Crimean referendum, according to
which the peninsula became part of the Russian Federation. In
the same address, Erdogan has stated that the Crimean Tatars were
repeatedly subjected to deportation and repression, and to preserve the
unity for them is extremely important. He has also assured the forum
participants that the main objective of Turkey is to ensure the security
of the Crimean Tatars, promising to continue to provide them with
assistance.

In
his interview to RUSARMINFO, Konstantin Zatulin, Director of the CIS
Institute, has expressed the opinion that Turkey is playing a double
game: it retains an interest in economic projects with Russia, and, in
obedience to the call of the past is in the confrontation with Russia.

“Obviously,
the Turkish President has decided to restore the Ottoman Empire, hence
there is a number of consequences: its activity in Turkic world and its
desire to become the leader among the Islamic countries. In the current
situation, Turkey has no chance in the Crimea, but Erdogan could not
resist the temptation to make a statement on the Crimean Tatars. Of
course, what has been shown by Turkey in regards to the Crimea, can not
be considered as an excessively radical position, but Erdogan’s
statements on the Crimean issue become more severe, ” says the expert. The
director of the Institute of CIS countries links the reaction of
Erdogan also to Vladimir Putin’s visit to Yerevan on the day of the
Centenary of the Armenian Genocide.

“The
public condemnation of the Armenian Genocide was perceived in Turkey
very nervously, and the aggravation of relations with Russia began from
that moment, up to that Erdogan refrained from any direct calls.”

One
of the main issues discussed at the recent World Congress in Ankara was
the creation of the Muslim battalion in Ukraine. It is assumed that the
battalion will be deployed in the border with the Crimea, Kherson
region. The task unit will control “the passage of people and goods”
between the Crimea and Ukraine. According to RIA Novostia, about 1,000
fighters have already signed up for this battalion, some of whom are
members of the terrorist organization “Islamic State”, who came to
Ukraine from Syria through Turkey. According
to Konstantin Zatulin, the Ukrainian authorities are trying to involve
the Crimean Tatars in conflict with the majority of the population of
the peninsula.

“It’s
certainly a suicidal path. The local population is unlikely to be
satisfied with the fact that they will be located near by the rabble,
and judging by the statements of the national composition of the
battalion – this is a rabble. It is a very dangerous environment from
which come all “Bin Ladens” and other radicals. The Ukrainian leadership
is trying to create something of this kind. I do believe that this fact
doesn’t strengthen, but rather weakens Ukraine, which creates another
source of tension on its own territory,” notes Zatulin.

The
World Congress of the Crimean Tatar people was held in the Turkish
capital on August 1-2, attended by 180 representatives of the Crimean
Tatar public organizations from 12 countries, but the Crimean delegation
itself was modest, not including any influential political and public
figures. Despite the invitation of the organizers, Turkish president
Tayyip Erdogan did not attend the congress, and instead sent a welcoming
address.

Experts: Russian troops to shield Armenia’s Turkish frontier in case of new Karabakh war

Russian
military experts offered forecasts and scenarios for possible conflicts
Moscow could become drawn into. According to Russian media, resumption
of a Karabakh war was named as
one of the possibilities, with the geography of war capable of spreading
beyond the borders of NKR. According to experts’ forecasts, in
the event of a new war, Russian troops deployed at Armenia’s Gyumri
military base will shield Armenia’s borders, thus enabling Armenian army
soldiers to be more effectively used in Karabakh. According to a
military expert Alexander Khramchikhin, Russia won’t gain from
involvement in Karabakh war, with Moscow to find itself in a difficult
situation should the conflict become “unfrozen.” According to
the expert, Russia has managed to stay flexible in its
Transcaucasia-oriented policy, cooperating with both Armenia and
Azerbaijan. “Should the conflict break out between the two
above-mentioned countries, Russia won’t be openly supporting Armenia,
with Moscow agreeing to become involved in a war were the 3rd parties,
like Turkey, to interfere,” the expert predicted.

Armenia’s leading political groups praised the commander of Russian
troops station in the country for stating that his forces could fight on
the Armenian side if Azerbaijan attempts a military solution to
Nagorno-Karabakh. Colonel Andrey Ruzinsky made the statement in a recent interview with
a Russian Defense Ministry newspaper. He cited Russia’s “obligations
within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO).”

Azerbaijani officials were quick to condemn the statement. They said
that since Karabakh is an internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan
an Azerbaijani attempt to reconquer the disputed territory cannot be
considered an attack on Armenia warranting military action by the
latter’s CSTO allies.

“This is an indicator of poor subordination in the Russian state
hierarchy,” Mubariz Gurbanli, the deputy executive secretary of
Azerbaijan’s ruling party, told the Turan news agency. “Under a normal
state system a soldier making such a statement would have been kicked
out.”

Armenian
reaction was diametrically opposite. The chief spokesman for
the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (HHK), Eduard Sharmazanov, said
Russia thus openly questioned Azerbaijani sovereignty over Karabakh.
“This is a clear message to Azerbaijan’s leadership that in case of
restarting hostilities they will find themselves in a very bad
situation,” Sharmazanov told RFE/RL’s Armenian service (Azatutyun.am).
Aghvan Vartanian, a leader of the opposition Armenian Revolutionary
Federation, called the Russian commander’s remark “unprecedented.” “It
means something,” he said.

“Of course for us the key thing is to be able to defend us and
Nagorno-Karabakh by ourselves. But CSTO member states have certain
obligations here,” added Vartanian.

Tevan Poghosian, a parliament deputy representing the opposition
Zharangutyun party, claimed that the statement reflects mediating
powers’ reluctance to help Azerbaijan regain control over Karabakh.
“They realize that Artsakh is not part of Azerbaijan,” he said,
referring to Russia, France and the United States.

A senior Russian diplomat deplored on Monday Turkey’s full and
unconditional support for Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
saying that it runs counter to international efforts to broker an
Armenian-Azerbaijani peace deal. “Such a position is not supported in the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe,” Aleksandr Lukashevich, the Russian
ambassador to the OSCE headquarters in Vienna, told the Rossiya-24 TV
channel.

“There is a strict understanding that the three co-chairs [of the
OSCE Minsk Group] — Russia, France and the U.S. — carry the main burden,
as do other members of the Minsk Group,” said Lukashevich. “Turkey, by
the way, is also a member. But the leading role [in the Karabakh peace
process] is reserved for the three co-chairs.”

“Therefore, attempts to defend one of the parties to the conflict in
Nagorno-Karabakh are absolutely destructive and cannot have any
continuation,” added the diplomat. The remarks clearly reflect a continuing war of words between Moscow
and Ankara that followed the November 24 downing by a Turkish fighter
jet of a Russian warplane near the Syrian-Turkish border. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Foreign Minister Mevlut
Cavusoglu reaffirmed that stance when they paid separate visits to Baku
shortly after the downing of the Russian bomber. Cavusoglu criticized
the U.S., Russian and French mediators for failing to achieve a Karabakh
settlement acceptable to Azerbaijan. He said they should come up with
“new proposals” on resolving the dispute.

Lukashevich attacked Ankara just hours after a Turkish-Azerbaijani
task force on military cooperation began an annual session in Baku. The
two Turkic allies have stepped up that cooperation since the signing in
2010 of a bilateral treaty on “strategic partnership and mutual
assistance.” Armenia has sought to preclude direct Turkish military intervention
in the Karabakh conflict with close defense links with Russia and, in
particular, Russian military presence on its soil. A Russian-Armenian
agreement signed in 2010 upgraded the security mission of a Russian army
base headquartered in Gyumri, an Armenian city close to the Turkish
border.

The deployment of the 102nd
Russian military base in Gyumri remains the subject of heated debate.
Some believe that that the Russian base guarantees security for Armenia,
while some are convinced that the base threatens the sovereignty of the
country. Pravda.Ru talked to the Vice President of the Academy of
Geopolitical Issues Konstantin Sivkov to get some clarity on the
situation."Turkey has an overwhelming military superiority
in the region, and Russia is unlikely to be able (in military terms) to
stop the advance of the Turkish troops. However, in case of an attack
on Armenia, Turkey would declare a war on Russia as well. The 102nd
Russian military base in Gyumri has more of a geopolitical significance
rather than military. Do you agree with this statement?"

"Any military base located outside of
Russia is a guarantee that in the event of military action against any
such country, Russia will enter the conflict on the side of that
country. Otherwise, there would be no military bases deployed there.
This is clear. If Turkey attacks Armenia, it will be treated as an
attack on Russia. Russia would fight on Armenia's side with all its
might. If necessary, Russia could use nuclear weapons against Turkey,
both tactical, and if need be, strategic. This is defined in the
military doctrine of the Russian Federation. Armenia is fully protected
with the Russian umbrella of both conventional forces as well as
strategic nuclear forces.""Russia spent a significant
amount of money on Gabala radar station (RS) in Azerbaijan, as well as
its military bases in Central Asia. There are sales of Russian weapons,
including the offensive ones, to Azerbaijan. Currently, Armenia and
Azerbaijan have the same sore issue - Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). Why is
Armenia not charging rent for the Russian base?""This is
because Russia and Armenia are allies. They have no commercial
relationship like the one between Azerbaijan and Russia. Russia will not
fight for Azerbaijan, but will fight for Armenia. Armenia is part of
the overall defense of the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO). Armenia cannot maintain effective means of defense because it's
quite expensive. The presence in the country of the Russian Federation
base equipped with anti-aircraft missile systems S-300 and MiG-29 and
able to provide a reliable defense against threats to Armenia of a
certain scale, that is, something that can be fought off with their own
forces and resources. In case of a more serious threat, additional
forces and air defense and fighter aircraft may be redeployed there.

"The question of who needs the base
more - Russia or Armenia - often turns into a pointless debate about
dependence. Given the strained relations between Turkey and Armenia, the
Karabakh conflict and open support that Ankara provides to Baku in this
conflict, the 102nd Russian base plays an important role in
ensuring the safety of Armenia. However, the U.S. has reasons behind the
encouragement of normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations with the
help of Zurich protocols. The goal is to eliminate Armenia's interest in
the presence of a Russian military base on its territory. What do you
think about it?""The Russian military base in Armenia is
not just for defense from Turkey. As I mentioned earlier, at the moment
there is only one front - the conflict with Azerbaijan. To some extent,
NATO military may present some risk for Armenia. The presence of the
Russian military base in Armenia is equally convenient for both sides.
Russia wants to push the frontiers of air capture as far from its
borders as possible. In turn, Armenia is interested in protecting its
sovereignty. The presence of the Russian military base in Armenia
implies protection of the interests of this country. If some Armenians
serve in the Russian army, the base is a natural element of the economic
system in Armenia and aids in the consolidation and development of the
economy of the country.

"Do you think the presence of the Russian military base in Armenia is a threat to its sovereignty?"

"This position is likely shared by
Dashnak Armenian nationalists who in the beginning of the last century
called for sovereignty and independence of Armenia. But such a small
country like Armenia cannot exist without the patronage of major powers.
If Russia leaves Armenia, the United States will come back. This is the
only possible solution. The mere presence of the Russian military base
is a guarantee of the sovereignty of Armenia. Moreover, the composition
and size of the military base, and its primary task of defense, rule out
the possibility of any significant impact on the internal political
life of Armenia. Fighter jets can in no way affect the political life of
this country."

Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov emphasized the
“strategic significance” of his country’s relations with Armenia after meeting
Armenian leaders and watching military exercises held by the Russian-led
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) near Yerevan on Wednesday.Serdyukov joined President Serzh Sarkisian as well as his Armenian and
Belarusian counterparts in monitoring the concluding phase of the five-day
maneuvers held at the Armenian army’s Marshal Bagramian training ground.
Kazakhstan’s top army general also arrived in Armenia on the occasion.​​They looked on as about 2,000 soldiers from Armenia, Russia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan simulated a joint operation against
imaginary “illegal armed formations” invading a CSTO member state. The CSTO
troops were backed up by tanks, armored vehicles, artillery systems, helicopter
gunships and warplanes firing live rounds.The drills also involved unmanned aircraft designed and manufactured in
Armenia. The Krunk drones were first demonstrated by the Armenian military
during a September 2011 parade in Yerevan. Serdyukov praised the course of the
war games when he held talks with Sarkisian later in the day. The Armenian
president’s press office said they also discussed Russian-Armenian military
ties and security “challenges” facing the region.Serdyukov said Russian-Armenian relations are currently “at the highest level”
and are strategically important to both nations after a separate meeting with
Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian. The meeting focused on what the two men called
a “reorganization” of Russian troops stationed in Armenia.“We have had quite good meetings today during which we discussed a broad range
of issues related to the 102nd Russian military base stationed in Armenia and
its reorganization taking place within the framework of a reform of Russia’s
Armed Forces,” Serdyukov told journalists. ​​“We are transferring about 10
facilities to the Armenian side,” he said without elaborating. “We also
discussed the issue of material-technical supplies to the base and our
relationships in that regard.”The Russian minister appeared to refer to a redeployment of Russian army units
in Armenia, which began in early 2011. In an apparently related development,
the Russian military announced in June that it will double this year the number
of its soldiers serving at the Soviet-era base headquartered in Gyumri on a
contractual basis. It is still not clear if the total number of its military
personnel will change as a result.The Russian base is believed to have between 4,000 and 5,000 troops. It is
equipped with hundreds of tanks, armored vehicles and artillery systems as well
as sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missiles and a squadron of MiG-29 fighter
jets.A Russian-Armenian agreement signed in 2010 extended the Russian military
presence in the South Caucasus nation by 24 years, until 2044, and upgraded its
security mission. It also committed the Russians to helping the Armenian
military obtain “modern and compatible weaponry and (special) military hardware.”

Russia Hopes to Dissuade Azerbaijan From Going to War Over Runaway Nagorno-Karabakh

Three hypotheses explaining a dramatic enlargement of the Russian
military group in Dagestan. Between 15,000 and 25,000 servicemen of the
Defense Ministry and Internal Troops with heavy fighting vehicles were
dispatched from Chechnya to Dagestan. The authorities call it planned
rotation one day and establishment of the Interior Ministry's Tactical
Force in Dagestan the following.Eyewitness reports mentioned
over 300 vehicles including armored personnel carriers, Ural ferries,
and armored command vehicles on the way to Dagestan. T-90 tanks and
multiple rocket launcher systems were already moved to Dagestan from
Chechnya. According to official explanations, "some forces of the
Provisional Task Force will be moved from Chechnya to Dagestan and
transformed into the Interior Ministry's Tactical Force." Dagestani
Security Council Secretary Magomed Baachilov, however, called it
"planned rotation".Both explanations are lame, of course.
Official explanation is invalidated by the simple fact that no Tactical
Force ever needs so many heavy armored vehicles
and Grad launchers. Baachilov's is plain rubbish on account of the
scope of the so called rotation. The impression is that a major
operation against the extremist underground is planned in Dagestan. Or
else the federal center knows something that warrants deployment of an
equivalent of two divisions... in addition to the 136th Brigade
quartered in Buinaksk, Marines in Kaspiisk, and countless OMON units.There
is, however, a third hypothesis as well. "As matters stand, there are
between 55,000 and 57,000 servicemen quartered in the republic...
discounting local law enforcement agencies... It is rumored here that
come summer Azerbaijan will make another go at Nagorno-Karabakh and try
to reabsorb the runaway region. All this military might concentrated in
Dagestan is meant as a warning to Baku, a message that Russia will
stand by Armenia," said a source in Dagestani security structures.

Source: Argumenty Nedeli, No 11, March 22, 2012, p. 2

Russia Hints At Intervention in Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

Several
days after apparent widespread skirmishes all along the
Armenia-Azerbaijan border and the Nagorno-Karabakh "line of contact,"
there is still very little information about what actually happened.
For a while, though, at least on the internet,
it seemed that a serious escalation of violence was imminent. It's a
bit odd that, amid all the rumors of massive fighting, there
doesn't seem to have been any casualties on either side, suggesting
that the reports may have been some sort of deliberate disinformation
campaign. And that's what the Armenian Defense Ministry has suggested:

The
rumors spread by Azerbaijani mass media on the possible combat
operations on NKR–Azerbaijan line of contact towards Aghdam and Fizulai
are nothing but imagination. In comparison to June 7-8, the ceasefire
violations in different parts of the front line have become more
frequent and have increased. This, however, did not affect and will not
affect the general state.

All the usual suspects issued the usual statements
calling on both sides to settle the conflict peacefully, etc. But
one international reaction was especially notable: Russia's. A
Russian military spokesman noted that airmen at the Russian military
base in Armenia have been stepping up their training flights since
the beginning of the year. From the New York Times:

Russian
fighter jets stationed at a base in Armenia have conducted about 300
training flights since the beginning of 2012, and have increased the
number of flying hours by more than 20 percent from last year...
Colonel Gorbul said Russian fighter pilots were preparing for combat.
“The main emphasis in performing aerobatic elements is made on the
ability to apply them in real-life air combat conditions,” he said.

Since
the increase in flights began at the beginning of the year, it
doesn't seem like it's in reaction to the flareup in violence. But the
statement does seem like a reaction to the flareup. Russia is of
course a crucial factor
in any potential conflict over Karabakh: while Azerbaijan is on the
way to gaining military superiority over Armenia, if Russia
intervened on Armenia's side it would be a whole different story.
(And whether they do may depend on whether the conflict is limited to
Karabakh itself, or if it spreads to Armenia, as these recent
skirmishes have.) It's of course easy for Russia to drop a hint like
this that it might get involved than to actually get involved if push
came to shove, but you can guess that this statement is being
closely analyzed in Baku.

The next meeting between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia may
take place under the mediation of French President Nikolas Sarkozy.
This announcement was made Wednesday by Azerbaijani sources, who
specified that the proposal was made during the French leader’s recent
visit to the region and that it had been discussed and approved by the
presidents of Russia and the United States. However, a spokesman for
Armenia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry categorically denied the information:
“Azerbaijan has been acting strange lately.”

One of the
things the Armenian diplomat considered to be strange was Azerbaijan’s
ANS Press reports about a wall which is being erected along the line of
contact with the armed forces of Nagorno-Karabakh. The stone structure
will stretch for almost 3 kilometers in Tatar District in order to “protect the residents of Azerbaijani villages from Armenian bullets.”

Armenia has expressed a readiness to provide assistance in the construction of the wall.

“And not just for 3 kilometers, but along the entire border – so that they do not see us, and we don’t see them,” an officer of the Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army told Nezavisimaya Gazeta (NG). He added that “it
would have been cheaper and easier for the Azerbaijanis to remove their
snipers, but despite the recommendations made by the mediators, they
are not – and we are forced to respond to fire with fire.”

“On the other hand, they have plenty of petro-dollars – they want a wall, let there be a wall,” said the source.

Though
a wall can always be erected, the Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall,
Hadrian’s Wall, or even the Incas’ mysterious walls at Sacsayhuaman
ultimately could not withstand the test of time. Another
attempt to break through the wall of animosity between Azerbaijanis and
Armenians will be made by the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group before
the end of October. According to the foreign affairs minister of
Azerbaijan, Elmar Mamedyarov, the mediators’ visit “will be aimed at searching for a compromise between the conflicting sides.” However, it seems that in reality Baku does not believe the forthcoming meeting will be productive.

On
Tuesday, the assistant secretary of the Security Department of
Azerbaijan’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, Elchin Guseinli, said that the
co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group are creating the possibility of
artificially prolonging the Karabakh conflict.

“The Minsk
Group has been carrying an important responsibility for 20 years, but
the co-chairmen still do not feel like they are… The passive attitude of
the OSCE Minsk Group toward conflict regulation could undermine the
authority of this organization in the Caucasus,” Guseinli said at a
conference in Baku which was jointly organized by the interstate GUAM
alliance (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) and the Baltic
Assembly (inter-parliamentary organization of Latvia, Lithuania and
Estonia).

In Guseinli’s opinion, the Karabakh conflict and the
conflicts in Georgia threaten international security, and the OSCE Minsk
Group, “instead of supporting the just position of Azerbaijan… prefers to cooperate with Armenia.”

Guseinli complained about Armenia’s close military and political ties with Russia, which are “a reason for instability in the region,”
and accused Erevan of violating its international obligations: the arms
and the military personnel of Armenia are allegedly exceeding the
limits set forth in international treaties, which indicates that Armenia
is getting ready for war, whereas “Azerbaijan is using its acquired weapons for the protection of its energy infrastructure.”

The
validity of these claims will need to be determined by the assistant
secretary of state for arms control, Rose Gottemoeller, who will inspect
the South Caucasus countries during a visit October 14-19. In the
meantime, Mikhail Aleksandrov, an expert with the Institute of CIS,
declared Guseinli’s statements to be illogical.

“It is strange hearing Azerbaijan accuse Armenia of being engaged in an arms race,” he said. “Baku
is the one provoking it and flaunting its military budget. Baku is the
one insisting that a military solution to the problem is possible.
Azerbaijan should reconsider its approach – the standard of living in
the country is not high to the point of being able to spend such
resources on the military.”

Aleksandrov also criticized the
Azerbaijani official’s claims regarding the creation of a regional
imbalance as a result of Russia and Armenia’s strategic partnership. “To the contrary, Armenian-Russian ties support a balance of forces,” Aleksandrov said. “With
its presence in the South Caucasus, Russia is creating a counterbalance
to Turkey, Iran and preventing the West from getting access to the
region, including military. If it wasn’t for Russia, the South Caucasus
would be in a similar situation as we are observing in Syria or Libya
today.”

As for the accusations directed at the OSCE Minsk
Group of creating obstacles to conflict resolution, the political
scientist believes that “it is simply pressure to persuade mediators to side with Baku.”

“Conflict
settlement is possible only if both sides decide to compromise, but
Azerbaijan has no intention to yield and blames the OSCE,” Aleksandrov said. “It
wants to gain everything back in the same shape as it was in before the
collapse of the Soviet Union, which is impossible. Baku must recognize
Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence in exchange for seven districts around
it – this option is still available, but might also become unrealizable
in another 10 years.”

“The OSCE is the only institution
working on European security, and it does not matter whether Azerbaijan
likes it or not… The bellicose rhetoric of Baku is at odds with OSCE
policy – neither Europe nor the United States wants a new war in the
Caucasus,” said Anatoly Tsyganok, head of the Military Forecasting Center at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis. “Azerbaijan
will hardly be able to go outside of the Minsk Group format. Despite
some shortcomings, the OSCE has strong positions. It’s worth mentioning
that the conflict itself and its settlement process do not solely depend
on Azerbaijan, but also on Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and partially
Russia, Iran and Turkey.”

Russia has deployed in Armenia state-of-the-art ballistic missiles
capable of striking targets more than 400 kilometers away, according to a
source in the Armenian Defense Ministry. Speaking on the condition anonymity, the source told RFE/RL’s
Armenian service (Azatutyun.am) over the weekend that several Iskander-M
systems are currently stationed at undisclosed locations in the
country. The source declined to clarify whether they were delivered to
the Armenian armed forces or the Russian military base headquartered in
Gyumri.

The Defense Ministry in Yerevan did not officially confirm or refute the information as of Monday. Citing an unnamed Russian military source, the Russian news agency
Regnum reported on May 15 that Moscow is likely to deploy the advanced
surface-to-surface missiles as part of the ongoing modernization of its
base in Armenia.

Designated by NATO as SS-26 Stone, Iskander-M is regarded by military
analysts as one of the most advanced missile systems of its kind in the
world. The system known for its precision was developed in the 1990s
and adopted by the Russian army in 2006. With an operational range of at
least 400 kilometers, its 7.3-meter-long missiles can overcome existing
missile-defense systems, according to Russian military officials and
experts.

Russian-Armenian military ties appear to have deepened further in the
last few months, with Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu and chief
of the General Staff, Colonel-General Valery Gerasimov, visiting
Armenia early this year. Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian held
follow-up talks with Shoygu a mid-April trip to Moscow.

President Vladimir Putin and his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian
also discussed defense cooperation when they met near Moscow on March
12. Sarkisian reportedly thanked Putin for “good progress” in bilateral
military ties made since their previous meeting in December.

A Russian-Armenian defense agreement signed in August 2010 commits
Moscow to helping Yerevan obtain “modern and compatible weaponry and
special military hardware.” Russian assistance is vital for the
implementation of a five-year plan to modernize the Armenian army that
was adopted by the Sarkisian administration later in 2010. The plan puts
the emphasis on the acquisition of long-range precision-guided weapons.

The Armenian military has been equipped until now with only Scud-B
and Tochka-U ballistic missiles that have firing ranges of 300
kilometers and 120 kilometers respectively. The Soviet-era systems are
less advanced than Iskander-M. The military makes no secret of its
readiness to use them against Azerbaijan’s oil and gas installations in
case of a renewed war for Nagorno-Karabakh.

In what will be a further boost to their close defense ties, Armenia
and Russia are to start jointly manufacturing weapons and other military
equipment under an agreement that was approved by the Armenian
government on Thursday.
The government said the draft agreement regulates “manufacturing and
research cooperation” between Armenian and Russian defense companies. It
commits them to supplying each other with equipment, assembly parts and
other materials needed for the production, modernization and repair of
various arms.The agreement, which was drawn up shortly after Russia Defense Minister
Anatoly Serdyukov’s September visit to Armenia, also stipulates that the
jointly manufactured weaponry cannot be re-exported or transferred to
third countries without the supplier’s permission.Yerevan and Moscow had already agreed to step up cooperation between
their defense industries within the framework of the Russian-led
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Nikolay Bordyuzha, the
CSTO secretary general, said in November last year that they are setting
up joint ventures in Armenia for the “maintenance, repair and
modernization of some types of weaponry.” He did not elaborate.Also, Russia is supposed to provide “special military hardware” to the
Armenian military in accordance with a Russian-Armenian defense accord
signed more than two years ago. The deal extended the presence of a
Russian military base in Armenia by 24 years, until 2044.​​“Moscow signs such agreements only in cases where it is interested
in concrete [mutually beneficial] cooperation,” Aleksandr Golts, a
leading Russian defense analyst, said of the new agreement announced by
Yerevan. “So one can assume that with this agreement Armenia has not only
expectations from Russia but probably also something to offer,” Golts
told RFE/RL’s Armenian service (Azatutyun.am).Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian praised the domestic defense industry
in January, saying that it can now cater for Armenia’s practically
entire military arsenal. Some of its output was demonstrated during a military parade in Yerevan
in September 2011. That included unmanned military aircraft,
flamethrowers and multiple grenade launchers. Armenia is also believed
to manufacture bullets and other ammunition.

An agency of Russian state reserves will be established in Armenia,
i.e. Armenia and Russia will create a joint regional reserve
infrastructure, Secretary of the Armenian National Security Council
Arthur Baghdasaryan said at the sitting of the interagency commission
coordinating the implementation of arrangements within the framework of
the CSTO. According to him, this will be of great impotence for the
development of the system of Armenia’s state reserves.

During the sitting Arthur Baghdasaryan presented the agreements
reached during his meeting with CSTO Secretary General Nikolay Bordyuzha
on October 15 and the roundtable discussion on “Armenia’s activity
within the CSTO framework.”

He informed that an agreement had been reached on creating an Academy
in Armenia within the framework of the CSTO. “It will provide an
opportunity to the employees of the National Security Councils,
Ministries of Emergency Situations and Police of CSTO member states to
take training courses with the involvement of CSTO resources,” Arthur
Baghdasaryan said. The NSC Secretary informed also that during his visit to Moscow
Russian President Vladimir Puitn signed a decree on opening of the
Armenian Representation of the Russian “Rosgranitsa” state agency.

The
geopolitical situation unfolding around Syria and Iran is
prompting Russia to make its military structures in the South
Caucasus, on the Caspian, Mediterranean and Black Sea regions more
efficient. Nezavisimaya Gazeta’s (NG) Defense Ministry sources are
saying that the Kremlin has been informed about an upcoming
US-supported Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The
strike will be sudden and take place on “day X” in the near
future. One could assume Iran’s reaction will not be delayed. A
full-scale war is possible, and its consequences could be
unpredictable.

This
problem is currently being addressed as a priority issue at the
EU-Russia summit in Brussels with the participation of President
Dmitry Medvedev. A day before the event, Russia’s envoy to the EU,
Vladimir Chizhov, relayed a message from the Kremlin, saying that an
Israeli or US strike on Iran will lead to “a catastrophic
development of events.” The diplomat stressed that the negative
consequences will not only be felt by the region, “but also in a
much broader context.” Russia’s direct diplomatic pressure on Europe
and the global community in respect to issues concerning a
possible war in Iran began recently after the IAEA’s publication of
a report on the Iranian nuclear program in November.

However,
in the military sphere, Russia’s preparations for minimization of
losses from possible military action against Tehran began more
than two years ago. Today, they are nearly complete. According to
the Defense Ministry sources, the 102nd military base in Armenia
was fully optimized in October-November 2011. Military personnel’s
families have been evacuated to Russia, and the Russian garrison
deployed near Yerevan reduced. Military sub-units stationed in the
area have been transferred to Gyumri district, closer to the
Turkish border.Strikes against Iranian facilities by
US troops are possible from Turkish territory. So far, it is
unclear as to what tasks the 102nd military base will perform in
relation to this. But it is known that Russian troops stationed at
military bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, have been on high
alert since December 1 of this year. Meanwhile, ships of the Black
Sea Fleet are located not far from the Georgian border which in
this conflict could act on the side of the anti-Iranian forces.

In
Izberbash, Dagestan, nearly adjacent to the Azerbaijani border, a
coastal guided missile battalion equipped with onshore anti-ship
Bal-E missile systems with a range of 130 km, have been put on
permanent combat readiness status. All guided missile craft of the
Caspian Flotilla have been redeployed from Astrakhan to Makhachkala
and Kaspiysk districts to form a single group. Meanwhile, the
flagship of the Flotilla, the sentry rocket ship “Tatarstan”, will
soon be joined by the small gunboat "Volgodonsk” and missile ship
“Dagestan”. The flagships of the Flotilla are equipped with missile
systems with a range of up to 200 km.

Recently,
the Northern Fleet’s aircraft carrier group with the heavy
aircraft carrier “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union
Kuznetsov”, headed towards the Mediterranean with plans to
ultimately enter the Syrian port of Tartus. NG’s sources from the
Defense Ministry did not confirm or deny the fact that the surface
warships are being accompanied by the Northern Fleet’s nuclear
submarines. The tasks that will be carried out by the army and the
navy in the event of a war against Iran are, of course, not being
disclosed. But Russia’s Defense Ministry is apparently concerned
about the logistical support of troops in Armenia. The 102nd
military base is a key point as it is Russia’s outpost in the South
Caucasus. It holds a very important geopolitical position. But
Kremlin officials are worried that this position will be lost. In
the event of a US-Israeli war against Iran, this will indeed be
tragic for Russia.

In
April of this year, Georgia broke the agreement on the transit of
military cargo to Armenia from Russia. Essentially, the
Russian-Armenian grouping in the South Caucasus has been isolated.
Supplies to the Russian army (POL, food, etc.) are delivered only by
air and through direct agreements with Armenia which, in turn,
purchases these products (gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene) from Iran.
A war in Iran will close this supply channel.

Lt.-Gen.
Yury Netkachev, who for a long time served as the deputy
commander of the Group of Russian Forces in the Transcaucasus and
was personally engaged in work on the supply of arms and ammunition
to combined armed forces and units (including the 102nd military
base), believes that, in the event of a full-fledged war against
Iran, Russia will be looking to securely supply the military
facility through Georgia. “Perhaps, it will be necessary to break
the Georgian transport blockade and supply the transport corridors
leading to Armenia by military means,” said the expert.

“Apparently,
Russia’s Defense Ministry is also quite wary of Azerbaijan, which
over the last three years has doubled its military budget and is
currently buying Israeli drones and other advanced means of
reconnaissance and topographic location, naturally aggravating Tehran
and Armenia,” says head of the Center for Military Forecasting,
Anatoly Tsyganok. “Baku has stepped up its pressure on Moscow,
demanding significantly higher rental fees for the Gabala radar
station. But even considering the disputes between Iran and Azerbaijan
over oilfields in the south of the Caspian Sea, one could hardly
argue that Baku will support an anti-Iranian military campaign. It
is also very unlikely that it will unleash hostilities against
Armenia.”

Col. Vladimir
Popov, who was engaged in the analysis of hostilities between Baku
and Yerevan between 1991 and 1993, and is currently following the
military reforms conducted by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev,
disagrees with the expert. Popov believes that “the negotiation
process on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict has been
unreasonably delayed.” Baku is making open statements on revenge.
“Azerbaijan pre-emptive strikes on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, made
in order to finally settle the territorial dispute in its favor,
are possible,” says the expert.But,
in his opinion, the question of how Russia will behave is
important. “If in the midst of a war in Iran, Azerbaijan supported
by Turkey, attacks Armenia, then, of course, all of the
adversary’s attacks against Armenia will be repelled by Russia in
conjunction with Armenian anti-missile defense forces. It’s hard to
say whether or not this will be considered as Moscow’s involvement
in military action. Russian troops will certainly not be engaged
in military action on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. But in
the event of a military threat to Armenia coming from Turkey or
Azerbaijan, for example, Russia will apparently take part in ground
operations,” says Popov.

The
analyst does not exclude the possibility of Russia’s military
involvement in the Iranian conflict. “In the worst-case scenario, if
Tehran is facing complete military defeat after a land invasion of
the US and NATO troops, Russia will provide its military support –
at least on a military-technical level,” predicts Vladimir Popov.

In Russia they start voicing plans for the “opening” of a straight way
to Armenia via Georgia. In particular, this is what deputy director of
the Center of Strategic Situations Mikhail Chernov wrote in his article
on the Russian lenta.ru portal. His article was taken as a provocation
and probing of sentiments, still it caused a sharp reaction both in
Armenia and Georgia.
The essence of the article by Chernova is that the military-strategic
treaties between Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are being
prepared for signing, may become prerequisites for Russia’s reaching the
border with Armenia. Now the only overland route from Russia to Armenia
lies through Georgia, and it is almost an insurmountable obstacle for
the integration of Armenia into the “neo-Soviet” space.

The texts of the treaties are already in the Russian State Duma, and,
according to Chernov, “the institution of bilateral treaties may become a
new tool of Russian foreign policy allowing Russia to meet its
objectives in the South Caucasus without unnecessary complications in
international relations.”

“Russia has two such basic tasks in the region and they are closely
related to each other. The first one is to prevent the creation of NATO
military infrastructure in Georgia. The second objective is to ensure a
reliable direct transport link with Armenia,” the Russian expert says.
Besides, control of the Russian Federation over transport communications
will provide full functioning of the Russian military base in Armenia.
The mechanism has also been devised. It turns out that on October 31
Vladikavkaz, the capital of Russia’s republic of North Ossetia hosted a
congress of the International Public Movement called “The Supreme
Council of the Ossetians”, which was also attended by former president
of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity. He raised the question of Trusovsky
gorges and Kobin hollow being part of Ossetia. Presence in Kazbegi
region will make it possible to control a small section of the
strategically important Georgian Military Highway – the shortest route
from Russia to Armenia.

“At the same time, Russia is more interested in the development of the
Trans-Caucasian Highway. The ‘western’ route to Armenia passes through
the Gori district, bypasses Trialet Ossetia, where a considerable number
of Ossetians lived before the early 1990s, as well as the
Armenian-populated Samtskhe-Javakheti region,” Chernov writes.

He hopes that if by some chance in Georgia on the basis of the current
political crisis Maidan-like events start, Russia may introduce troops
into Georgia for the “protection” of Ossetians and thus open up its
route towards Armenia. In an interview with Newspost former defense minister of Georgia Dimitri
Shashkin said: “Alarm should be sounded over the document relating to
the Tskhinvali region, which officially entered the [Russian State]
Duma. Russian experts have already started openly speaking about the
threat that concerns Russia’s big desire to create a direct link with
its base in Gyumri (Armenia).”

According to Shashkin, on the basis of treaties being prepared with
Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Russia is openly stating that it will protect
them against Georgians. “[Russian] protection of Georgian regions is another new challenge. It
turns out that if about a hundred people are paid for setting up a group
of provocateurs, they [Russians] may invade Kakheti in order to protect
the local population. A hundred provocateurs can be found easily,”
Shashkin said. No official reaction to these statements have yet been made in Armenia,
Georgia and Russia, however, at the level of experts there are opinions
that such provocations can sow discord between Georgians and Armenians.
Former Georgian Defense Minister Irakli Alasania, who stepped down
recently, has repeatedly stated that the Russian base in Armenia is a
threat for Georgia. It is these threats that do not allow Georgia and
Armenia to establish mutually beneficial relations.

Armenia Armed by Russia for battles with Azerbaijan Scandal compared to Iran-Contra

Russia
secretly has shipped more than $1 billion worth of arms to Armenia,
apparently to be used against - pro-Western Azerbaijan and - to force
the Azeris -and their strategic oil reserves into Russia's orbit. Aman
Tuleyev, minister for relations with the Commonwealth of Independent
States, has acknowledged that Moscow supplied Armenia with 84 T-72 main
battle tanks, 72 heavy howitzers, 24 Scud missiles with eight launchers,
50 armored personnel carriers and millions of rounds of ammunition. Lev
Rokhlin, the chairman of the Defense Committee of the Duma, the lower
House of the Russian parliament, told a closed Duma session April 2 that
Moscow had -shipped $1 billion worth of weapons to the tough,
nationalist government of President Levon Ter-Petrosian in Yerevan. His
report was similar to Mr. Tuleyev's acknowledgment. Between 1992 and
early 1994, when the conflict was at its height, Russian heavy transport
aircraft were said to have ferried 1,300 tons of ammunition across the
Caucasus to the Armenian capital. Most of the tanks were flown in aboard
giant Antonov planes from the city of Akhtubinsk.

The
Azeris say Russia also supplied 1,000 hand-fired Strela-2 and Strela-3
anti-aircraft missiles, which were moved by ship across The Caspian Sea,
then sent over land through Iran to Armenia. Iran has denied playing
any role. Western intelligence sources said The weapons played a crucial
role in Armenia's, seizure of large areas of Azerbaijan, which created a
million refugees, more than from any other conflict in Europe since
World War II. Although Russia's military support for Armenia in its long
conflict with Azerbaijan has been well-known, the extent of the arms
transfers came as a surprise.Responding to the revelations,
Russian President Boris Yeltsin ordered a major government probe
Saturday that could implicate his longtime defense minister, Marshal
Pavel Grachev who was fired last spring. Russian military prosecutors
are considering calling Marshal Grachev in for questioning over the
scandal, which has been compared to The Iran-Contra affair. The-
chairman of the Azeri parliament, Murtuz Alesketov, said Saturday the
arms shipments could destabilize the Caucasus. "If these arms are not
returned, this could lead to a new large-scale war in the region" he
said at parliamentary hearings in Baku. Since the collapse of the Soviet
Union at the end of 1991, Shi'ite Muslim Azerbaijan has eagerly courted
American oil companies to help it develop the immense oil and gas
reserves of the Caspian Sea, estimated as second in size and value only
to those in the Persian Gulf. Russia has responded by backing Orthodox
Christian Armenia, its historic

ally.On
March 29, shortly after Mr. Yeltsin's Helsinki summit with President
Clinton, the Russian leader finalized a treaty of friendship and
strategic partnership with Mr. Ter-Petrosian. The move came after Mr. -
Ter-Petrosian alarmed Azerbaijan by appointing The hard-line leader of
ethnic Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh, a region of Azerbajjan, as prime
minister of Armenia, a move widely regarded as paving the way for a
renewed attack on Azerbaijan. There are at least 20,000 Russian 4th Army
troops in Armenia concentrated around three major bases. Ivan Rybkin,
head of Russia's Security Council, said after a meeting in Moscow with
Mr. Ter-Petrosian on March 27 that the new bilateral treaty would have a
"military component", the Moscow newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported
March 28. Some Moscow analysts believe that Defense Minister Igor
Rodionov and his supporters leaked details of the arms deals now to
prevent Mr. Yeltsin from bringing back Marshal Grachev as chief military
inspector at the Defense Ministry, the independent Moscow newspaper
Segodnya said.

Russia stands against any forms of genocide and calls on the world
community to counteract them, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin wrote in
his welcome speech addressed to the attendees of the commemoration
evening “World without Genocide,” the official Kremlin website reports: “Dear friends, April 24, 1915 is a mournful date related to one of the most horrible
and dramatic events in human history – the Armenian Genocide. A decade later we bend our heads before the memory of all the victims
of the tragedy, which our country has always perceived as its own pain
and misfortune. Russia’s stand was and continues to be objective and consistent:
there can be no justification to the mass annihilation on the ground of
ethnicity. The international community is urged to do its best in order
to prevent the repetition of such atrocities anywhere and anytime. The
new generations of Armenians and other nations of the region must live
in peace and chime, without knowing the horrors, which are sparked by
religious animosity, aggressive nationalism and xenophobia. I wish the
brotherly Armenia and all the Armenians living in Russia, peace and
prosperity. May the memory of the victims live forever,” the statement reads.

Chairman of the Russian State Duma pays tribute to Armenian Genocide victims

Chairman
of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation
Sergey Naryshkin and his delegation visited the Tsitsernakaberd
Memorial Complex accompanied by Vice President of the National Assembly
of the Republic of Armenia Edward Sharmazanov. Chairman of the State
Duma of the Russian Federation laid a wreath at the memorial to the
Armenian Genocide victims after which the members of the delegation put
flowers at the Eternal Fire and honored the memory of the innocent
victims with a minute of silence. Members of the Russian delegation
visited the Armenian Genocide Museum where they get acquainted with the
temporary exhibition titled “Book as a witness of the Genocide”
dedicated to the 500th anniversary of the Armenian printing and
proclamation of Yerevan as 2012 World Book Capital City by UNESCO.
Afterwards Chairman of the State Duma of the Russian Federation left a
note in the Commemoration Book. The delegates from the Russian
Federation had a tour of the Memorial Alley where Chairman of the State
Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation Sergey
Naryshkin planted a fir.

The
Armenian Genocide was “was a crime against humanity and
civilization,” said the chairwoman of Russian Federal Council (Senate),
during a visit to Dzidzernageprt memorial monument on Thursday.
Valentina Matviyenko led a delegation to the Armenian Genocide Museum
and Institute and laid a wreath at the memorial. “No matter how many
centuries pass, such crimes can never be forgotten nor can they be
repeated again,” said Matviyenko adding that it was the right decision
by the Armenians to build such a memorial dedicated to the innocent
victims. “As long as the memory lives on, such things will never happen
again.” The visiting dignitary was given a guided tour of the
Museum-Institute, after which she signed the Book of Records and watered
the tree she had planted on an earlier visit to the “Memory Garden.”
At a press conference later Thursday with Armenia’s Parliament Speaker
Hovig Abrahamian, Matviyenko said the Russian Federal Council was
interested in strengthening cooperation with Armenia’s National
Assembly. Matviyenko added that since establishment of diplomatic
relations, Armenia and Russia have reached mutually beneficial
cooperation in most different spheres. “Armenia is an active member of
the CSTO and the Armenian-Russian military-technical cooperation is
productively developing within that framework,” said Matviyenko.
Abrahamian praised Armenian-Russian cooperation adding that the visit
of the delegation will further contribute to the development of that
cooperation.

The
US policy on Armenia has resulted in a break-up of Armenia's once
powerful light industry, in lopsided reforms and the ensuing economic
and social problems. According to experts, the US long-term plans to
make Armenia distance itself from Russia are hardly feasible today, just
as they were unfeasible 20 years ago. Americans have to take into
account the historical and political realities of the region.

The
US has never cherished illusions about the post-Soviet Armenia.
Washington has conversely been and will remain suspicious of Yerevan,
for Armenia is Russia's strategic partner, a member state of the
Collective Security Treaty Organization and has friendly relations with
Iran despite the geographical and geopolitical realities. And yet, the
US seeks to play an active role in the Trans-Caucasus. The US has for
example tried to ensure that Armenia and Turkey will open their border,
one that's been closed since 1993 at the insistence of Ankara. The US
thus sought to bolster its ally Turkey's position in the region. But the
diplomatic effort of 2010 yielded no specific result. The US plan
failed. This is what Director of the Institute for Caucasus Studies,
political analyst Alexander Iskandaryan, says about it in a comment.

"The
US has clearly miscalculated. The moment the Armenian-Turkish factor
became a factor in Turkey's home policy, the US pressure proved
insufficient. There is a world of a difference between pressurizing
Turkey in Zurich and doing the same thing in Ankara. Besides, the US
badly needs Turkey; it needs the crazy house that's emerged in the
Middle East in recent years. Ankara is perfectly aware of that. So, it
was the US miscalculation and also the drastically changed situation, I
mean the Arab Spring, etc. In short, the US efforts failed".

Yet
another factor in the US attempted boosting of influence on Armenia over
the past 20 years have been all sorts of grant programmes, the loan
financing of government and central bank programmes, and also support
for numerous nongovernmental public organizations that have initiated
most protest actions in Armenia. According to experts and analysts, the
US is thus trying to create financial dependence and pro-western
sentiment of the local elite. But according to an Armenian political
analyst and spin doctor Vigen Akopyan, the Americans failed to ensure an
alternative to Russia in such important areas as military and economic
security.

"Security is of paramount importance to Armenia. If
Armenia has strong armed forces, it will be able to settle the issue of
Nagorno-Karabakh, and will also manage to settle economic problems.
Transfers are also very important. A transfer is Armenia's second
budget. Some 2.5 billion dollars are transferred to Armenia officially
every year. Russia accounts for some 86% of that amount. Americans have
failed to offer alternatives to these important factors".

Experts
also point out that the US has never tried to stage a coup in Armenia,
like the one in Georgia, because of Armenia's obvious orientation
towards Russia. An increasingly great number of experts agree that to
weaken Russia's influence on the region will soon become next to
impossible, given Armenia's forthcoming joining of the Customs Union.

A
few weeks ago there was some back and forth between Armenians and
Azerbaijanis about whether Russia would come to Armenia's defense in
the case of a war over Nagorno Karabakh. Well, now a top Russian
general has weighed in, and he sounds pretty certain that Russia would
get involved. General Andrei Tretyak, the Chief of the Main
Operations Directorate of the Defense Ministry, discussed the Russian
military's future plans with some analysts, and this is from Dmitry
Gorenburg's account:In a
discussion on the situation in Karabakh, General Tretyak agreed with a
participant’s assessment that the possibility of conflict in that
region is high, but argued that it is gradually decreasing as a result
of Russian efforts to reduce tension in the region. He disagreed with
the suggestion that Russia’s relationship with Armenia is eroding and
made clear that Russia will carry out its promises to that country. No
one should see Russia’s refusal to intervene in Kyrgyzstan last
summer as a precedent for Karabakh, as that was a very different
situation.Hmm, that can't make too many folks in Baku
feel too confident. Tretyak also weighed in on Central Asia, and
suggested that the Collective Security Treaty Organization could help
fill the security vacuum that will be created by the U.S. leaving
Afghanistan. And he seems to acknowledge that the CSTO kind of dropped
the ball on Kyrgyzstan last year, when it did nothing to stop the
pogroms that took place there in what many saw as the first big test
of the collective security group: He also felt that what he saw as the
inevitable US withdrawal from the region will have a negative effect
on stability.In this context, the CSTO may come to play a more
important role in the region. General Tretyak pointed out that CSTO
reforms are continuing. The major Russian military exercises in the
summer and early fall will include CSTO states. The Russian military
has looked at the issues that arose in conjunction with the Kyrgyzstan
crisis and know how to act if a similar situation arises in the
future; according to General Tretyak, there are no disagreements on
this with Russia’s CSTO partners. The general further noted that the
forces assigned to the CSTO are the best prepared of Russia’s forces,
because Russia wants to increase the organization’s military
effectiveness. General Tretyak reiterated the Russian position that it
would like NATO to recognize the legitimacy of the CSTO and establish
cooperation with it.This seems to be a pointed message that the
CSTO is learning from its mistakes in Kyrgyzstan -- and that those
who expect it to stand aside in the future should think again.

Perhaps
the empire just doesn’t get it. They need to re-examine their
despicable, foolish and devious scheme to bring an orange scenario to an
embattled, besieged Armenia. Under blockade by neighboring Turkey and
Azerbaijan, Armenia continues to prosper despite some instances of
corruption and economic isolation. Armenia is not fertile ground for any
sort of orange scenario. Armenians are generally politically astute,
pro-Russian and not easily swayed. They are also acutely aware of the
fact that there is no future for them as vassals of the empire.

Armenian
history is said to be 12,000 years old, and Mt. Ararat is the historic
scene where Noah‘s Ark is said to have rested, a revered and treasured
Armenian landmark. An archeologist’s dream come true, Armenia is a land
of quaint churches and elaborately and meticulously carved khatchkars
(Orthodox crosses). Constant and reliable, the centuries old friendship
and alliance with Russia is unshakable. Most Armenians are aware of the
fact that there probably would be no Armenia if not for Russia. No plots
or schemes by the empire are going to change that reality.
The empire also wins no friends among Armenians for its consistent
policy of Genocide denial. These policies go beyond the geo-political
considerations given as an excuse, such as the US base in occupied
Western Armenia, under control of Turkey and their alliances with
Armenian enemies Turkey, Israel and Azerbaijan. And then there are the oil
pipelines…constructed to bypass Armenia, a country in a strategic
position between east and west, a crossroads as it were. As a result of
the Armenian Genocide of 1894-1923, Armenians lost most of their
homeland and over 1.5 million Armenians were murdered in the most
horrendous and brutal fashion imaginable and unimaginable. To this day,
no Nuremberg trials, no compensation or apology have occurred.
Therefore, the memory of this tragedy in an ongoing issue of importance
to Armenians.In
Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrosian is generally despised for his corrupt
ruinous policies while President of Armenia. He is also despised for
proffering the notion that the recently liberated Armenian land of
Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) should be returned to Azerbaijan. Artsakh is
now an independent country. The US regime is financially backing
Ter-Petrosian and causing trouble in the background. Ter-Petrosian had
the strange idea that he had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning an
election to be President. Fat chance. Now he sends agitators to do his
bidding, a la Soros funding, all the best agitators money and the empire
can buy.On
Public Armenian Television, Armenian Parliament Speaker Tigran Torosian
told the following of his knowledge of events: “These people decided
who the winner is five minutes after the election. This is their
characteristic feature. I learned about my alleged resignation from
journalists. Levon Ter-Petrosian and his team-mates have exhausted the
sources of lies which exceed all possible borders,” the speaker said.
“They spread lies about all and offense all those who are not with them.
They are filled with hatred and revenge,” he said. "OK, let's say all
the grenades, pistols and automatics were planted by the regime, what do
you have to say about all those hooligans with rods and sticks, beating
the police, throwing bricks and stones, burning cars including busses and an ambulance, looting shops and supermarkets?"According
to various local reports, 8 persons were killed in orange
demonstrations as the Army was called in to restore the peace. They also
report that Opera and Republican Square are swarming with army troops
and military police armed to the teeth with AK-47s, belt-fed battle
rifles and there are dozens of light tanks in both locations. In
addition to that, there are troops scattered in posts all over the city
and on all the roads into the city. One hundred and thirty-one persons
were reported injured in the March 1 disturbances. An on the scene
observer sent this report:

"Hi,
this morning I walked from the Opera House until Mashtoz Underpass.
Everything was just fine. Police closed the underpass toward city hall
and near the French embassy where they made a mess. My friend 8:30 at
night went everywhere with the exception of closed areas and found
calm...all shops are open and traffic is normal, 8 people got killed and
about 30 people got arrested for looting, all young guys."

Interior
troops and police officers suffered bullet wounds and injuries in the
March 1 clashes with rioters in Yerevan. On his visit to the hospital,
President Kocharian was accompanied by police chief Hayk Harutyunian and
other officials. Kocharian went from one hospital ward to another and
spoke to officers and servicemen. Hospital chief, Arthur Petrosian, said
they admitted 33 wounded officers and servicemen on March 1 until 8.30
pm and 27 others after 9 pm. He said 11 received bullet wounds, eight
were hospitalized with heavy symptoms of gas poisoning, 2 received knife
wounds. Seven servicemen went to their quarters after receiving first
aid and 11 others were operated on. The chief of the hospital said their
condition is satisfactory now. At the end of February, prior to the
breakout of violence, a vehicle was apprehended trying to enter the
country loaded with weapons and ammunition.

On
March 1, 2008, Armenia’s President Robert Kocharian declared a 2-day
state of emergency in compliance of article 55.6 of the RA (Republic of
Armenia) Constitution (threat to state and population security).
Fortunately, anti-terrorist, anti-orange scenario joint exercises were
held by Armenia and Russia in anticipation of such occurrences.
Meanwhile the empire is mouthing duplicitous, hypocritical words about
“excessive use of force.”

Secretary General of the Council of
Europe, Terry Davis said, “The state of emergency suspends the
application of several rights and freedoms protected by the European
Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 15 of the Convention the
Armenian Government must inform me of the measures which it has taken
and the reasons therefore. I expect that they will do so without any
delay,” the Council of Europe press division reports. The recent
presidential elections in Armenia saw Serzh Sarksyan, Kocharian’s number
two man, elected as President of Armenia. The voting result was
unmistakable: Serzh Sarkisyan - 862,369 (52,82%) votes, Levon
Ter-Petrosian – 351,222 (21,5%).votes.

The February 19th
presidential elections were not only characterized as `free and fair' by
the CIS observers, but also received the positive assessments of the
Western observation missions. The observation mission of the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly, which stands out in terms of its strict and
meticulous attitude towards the electoral processes held in former USSR
territories, clearly recorded that, `The presidential elections held in
Armenia on February 19 were mostly in line with the commitments to the
OSCE and the Council of Europe.” But this didn’t satisfy the orange
agitators.

Kocharian, throughout his term as President, has had a
warm, brotherly relationship with his counterpart in Russia, Vladimir
Putin. Like the outgoing president, Robert Kocharian, Mr. Sarkisyan is
from Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). Both men were commanders in the war.The
newly elected Armenian President released this message to the people:

“Dear Compatriots, In
consequence of the recent events, our people suffered great losses.
There are casualties among policemen, who performed their duty, and
among protesters, who fell under the influence of a group of people.
Hundreds of civilians suffered from illegal acts of the radical
opposition.Leaders of the co-called ‘movement’ made targets of their own
supporters and policemen to suit their own ends. The initiators of
disorders must answer for their deeds before the law, history and
generations. With pain, I conceive that our compatriots fell victim to
blind hatred of some individuals. I share your grief and wish you
courage and strength to overcome this tragedy…”As
the cleanup crew mitigates the after effects of the recent lawlessness,
one can only hope that the street sweepers will also sweep away the
trash known as orange agent provocateurs and leave this proud,
struggling nation in peace.

Opening of Armenian-Turkish Border Should be a Russian but not a U.S. Project

Some warming between Yerevan and Ankara is favorable. The
Armenian-Turkish relations need gradual normalization, Andrey Areshev,
expert at Strategic Culture Foundation said in an interview with
PanARMENIAN.Net. “Consultations of diplomats are no longer a secret.
Russian concessionaires of the Armenian Railways announced readiness to
reconstruct Kars-Gyumri line. Foreign media circulated information that
some oil companies negotiate construction of a gas pipeline with
Armenia. The Ayrum-Gyumri-Akhuryan route (bypassing Georgia) is being
discussed. Certainly, these are just variants but Georgia’s destructive
role in the region becomes more and more evident not only for Russia or
Iran but also for U.S. allies, such as Turkey, and the key EU countries,
which are concerned over their energy security,” he said. “Possible
normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations and partial opening of
the border should not be used as an argument for withdrawal of the
Russian military base from Armenia. Furthermore, opening of the border
should be a Russian but not a U.S. project,” Areshev emphasized. “The
Armenian authorities’ flirtation with the U.S. and NATO, the forthcoming
joint exercise in September are quite understandable as a part of
complementary policy pursued by the republic. However, it’s clear that
the west will use Caucasian nations as active storage (Georgia is a
vivid example) Cooling with Russia in exchange for attractive offers can
have deplorable consequences for Armenia and NKR’s security. The
Karabakh conflict can’t be resolved with NATO’s assistance. Partial
restoration of Russia’s positions in the Caucasus, Turkey and Iran’s
firm opposition to resumption of hostilities may push Baku to search for
more adequate way to resolve the Karabakh conflict. However, it will
not happen before the presidential election in Azerbaijan,” he
concluded.

"Resumption
of hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh would cause more damage than in
1992-1994, since collisions would take place between well-equipped
armies not guerilla troops," said Vladimir Kazimirov, the former Russian
co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group. If war resumes, he said, neither side
would manage a victorious blitzkrieg. Hostilities will linger for the
next 4-5 years and the consequences will be destructive for the
initiator first and foremost. This is a fact that demands very thorough
consideration by the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, he said.According
to Kazimorov, the war is a threat for the entire international
community as well. "The
South Caucasus is not a region deserving indifference," he said, noting
that it won't be easy to justify new carnage or an occupation of
Armenia, since everyone sees Yerevan and Stepanakert as insisting on a
compromise solution, while Baku stubbornly threatens war if Armenians
don't relinquish all territorial claims, including Nagorno-Karabakh. The
Repetition of hostilities will be perceived as a great anomaly," the
Russian diplomat said."The
side that dares to violate the armistice will immediately draw
universal condemnation for breaking from the principles of the OSCE and
the commitments to the CoE," he stated. "World powers and influential
international organizations, which have worked for a peaceful resolution
of the conflict will severely condemn the aggressor," he added.Although
Article 9 of the Azerbaijani constitution rejects war as a means of
settling international conflicts, Azeri leaders have already undermined
the authority of their Laws by making repeated bellicose statements,
Kazimorov noted. They don't fail to cite the Constitution when
commenting on the referendum on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh but they
completely ignore the above-mentioned article, he added. Baku's role
in exacerbating the situation in the Caucasus is becoming more apparent,
Kazimorov stated. Baku has been intensifying the arms race in the
Caucasus by drastically boosting its defense budget year after year.
While President Heydar Aliyev has completely neglected the agreement
with Armenia and Karabakh on the suppression of border incidents, he
noted.Every day the Azeri Defense Ministry reports a
violation of the ceasefire by Armenians. However, if Baku truly wanted
to suppress such incidents, why doesn't it follow the agreement
officially signed under the aegis of the OSCE? Meanwhile, Yerevan and
Stepanakert have time and again stated their support of the agreement.
If Baku thinks this agreement imperfect, it could be amended or replaced
by another one. However, it is clear that Azerbaijan prefers the
mounting casualties so as to aggravate tensions and pursue their
hysterical propaganda. According to Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs armed
revenge will entail grave consequences and ruin Azerbaijan's future.

Russian expert: Military settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict is an affair that will result in collapse of Azerbaijan

National
consensus has been reached in Nagorno Karabakh regarding the fact that
“the republic must be an independent state,” so victory of one or
another candidate at the presidential election will not radically change
on the general situation, head of the Caucasus department at the
Institute for CIS Studies Mikhail Alexandrov said. “The matter concerns
nuances. For instance, Bako Saakyan is quite moderate and is orientated
towards connection with Armenia and talks with Azerbaijan. Masis Mailyan
is tougher, he opposes returning of seven occupied areas to Azerbaijan
and speaks for a more autonomous from Yerevan negotiation stance,”
Alexandrov said adding that in any case, the key direction in
Stepanakert will be dialog. At the same time, he noted that Ilham
Aliev’s hopes for returning Karabakh through dialog are naïve.“A
military settlement is an affair that will result in collapse of
Azerbaijan as a state. It is unreal for Baku to win over Armenia and the
NKR, no matter how strongly they increase their military spending,” the
expert believes. The matter concerns not only money, but efficiency of
the Army. “Besides, Armenia is connected with Russia by military
agreements; the most up-to-date military equipment is supplied there at
lower prices. Some types of weapons are impossible for Azerbaijan to
acquire in foreign markets; nobody will sell them to it. So, it will be
ungrounded to hope for superiority and a Blitzkrieg,”the
analyst stressed adding that “this form of being looped” can result in
Azerbaijan losing the seven areas of the Nagorno Karabakh security belt.
Now, he believes, there is still an opportunity to implement the
formula “peace for territories”: Azerbaijan recognizes Nagorno Karabakh
independence and the latter returns the territories. “However, now, the
time is not serving Baku. The Kosovo precedent that, most probably, will
end with a one-sided recognition of the territory’s independence by the
West will only encourage Karabakh in its intentions. ‘The Fifth Column’
and a coup in Stepanakert are ruled out, because there is no single
Azerbaijani there,” Mikhail Alexandrov is quoted as saying by
PanARMENIAN.Net.

The
official part of a visit of the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, to
Armenia has begun. The formal pretext for the visit was the opening of
the Year of Russia in Armenia. In actual fact, the agenda goes beyond
the framework of protocol and cultural functions: it will include the
Karabakh problem, cooperation in the gas sphere, and the use of Armenian
territory for the deployment of Russian military bases which will be
withdrawn from Georgia within the next few years. The President of
Russia, together with his Armenian colleague, Robert Kocharyan, will
take part in the official opening of the Year of Russia in Armenia and
attend a gala concert. The pompous protocol functions serve as a
smokescreen for a very important dialogue on the burning issues of the
day.

Alarmed by a whole series of “Rose”, “Orange” and other
revolutions, Russia is afraid of losing one of the last of its bulwarks
in the area of the former USSR. In the context of the deepening of their
strategic partnership the presidents of the two countries will discuss
the problems of resolving the Karabakh conflict, as well as the
prospects of deploying the Russian military bases on Armenian territory,
which should be withdrawn from Georgia within the next few years. As
regards the first problem, Moscow tries to soften the position of
Yerevan in order to avoid the exacerbation of the relations with Baku.
The Kremlin hoped to bring the President of Armenia, Robert Kocharyan,
and the President of Azerbaijan, Ilkham Aliyev, to negotiations during
the celebration of the 60th anniversary of Victory in the last war in
Moscow in May.

However, judging by information coming in from Baku,
President Aliyev will hardly come to Moscow for the occasion. The
question of the withdrawal of Russian troops and arms from Georgia has
been solved, in the main, as a result of negotiations with the Georgian
leadership, although the deadlines have not been fixed. The most
probable time will be 2007. After that Russia hopes to deploy its
military units on Armenian territory, in the vicinity of the Russian
base No 102. Yerevan agrees to it, but puts forward a number of
conditions. The main one is a solution to the problem of the transport
blockade of Armenia. This is why both Moscow and Yerevan hope to work
out a concerted policy aimed at obtaining Georgia's consent to a free
transport corridor by commissioning the Novorossiisk – Poti sea ferry,
and also resuming the railway connection through the territory of
Abkhazia.

Naturally, the questions of military cooperation will also be
discussed. Armenia receives arms and ammunition from Russia at
preferential prices. To date more than 500 Armenian army officers study
in Russia free of charge, that is, at the expense of the Russian budget.
This figure can be bigger. A range of problems to be discussed deal
with the relations between Russia, Armenia and Iran. Teheran remains an
important regional partner of Moscow, but it views rather cautiously the
plans to build a gas pipeline between Iran and Armenia, which will
later be one of the channels of supplying Iranian gas to Ukraine and
Europe. But the deputy foreign minister of Armenia, Gegam Garibjanyan,
has said that Russia should take part in the negotiations on the matter.
President Putin will, no doubt, raise the question of “Gazprom” taking
part in the implementation of this project.

Despite a powerful Diaspora lobby in the United States, Armenians'
positive feelings towards the U.S. are nearly 40 percentage points
behind their feelings towards neighboring Russia. So says a survey of
the small (3 million inhabitants) yet strategically located nation,
conducted earlier this year by InterMedia, a Washington, D.C.- based
research, evaluation and consulting organization. The InterMedia survey
found fully 90 percent of Armenians are favorably inclined towards
Russia, but only 53 percent say they are so inclined towards the United
States. "The higher favorability towards Russia compared to the U.S. is
not surprising," says Lyuda Andriyevska, one of InterMedia's project
managers for Eurasia. "Russia has been the main strategic partner for
Armenia for centuries. Currently, Russia provides landlocked Armenia
with oil and gas, invests heavily in business and infrastructure, sells
weapons and supports many positions of Armenian foreign policy, the
touchiest of which is its dispute with Azerbaijan over the
Nagorno-Karabakh region."

Armenia is strategically significant in the region due in part to its
location at both the energy and ethnic crossroads of Europe, Asia and
Middle East. With growing demand for energy resources in the world,
Armenia is an important player among three regional powers -- Iran,
Turkey and Russia -- all of which compete for political and economic
leadership in the region. Only slightly more than one-quarter of
Armenians, 28 percent, are favourably inclined towards their northern
neighbour, Georgia. "One reason is the souring of Georgian-Russian
relations over the last couple of years," says Ms. Andriyevska. "Georgia
serves as a lifeline for the Armenian economy, as all the inland trade
with Russia goes through it. However, the ongoing conflict between
Georgia and Russia has seriously disrupted communication and
transportation of energy and food supplies to Armenia. This should serve
to increase Armenians' animosity towards Georgia and perhaps even take
some of the lustre off their feelings towards Russia."

The InterMedia survey also found Armenians are pro-European but less
keen on NATO. Seventy percent of the population agree or strongly agree
with the statement that "Armenia should join EU." NATO, on the other
hand, has the support of only slightly more than a quarter of the
population, 27 percent. Although favorability toward Russia is high,
there are fundamental differences in public sentiment between the two
countries. The InterMedia survey finds Armenians are more optimistic
about democratic changes in their country and have more faith in the
power of the electoral process than do Russians. Almost two-thirds of
Armenians, 64 percent, anticipated increased chances for democracy and
personal self expression after the presidential elections in February
2008; only 5 percent of the Russian population expected similar
improvements in terms of democracy and self expression after their own
2008 presidential elections. (InterMedia's Russian survey took place in
January 2008.)

InterMedia is a leading international media research, public opinion,
evaluation and consulting organization creatively equipping clients to
understand their audiences, gauge their effectiveness and target their
communications in transitional and developing societies worldwide. Based
in Washington, D.C., and active year-round in more than 60 countries,
InterMedia helps clients understand complex issues in challenging
research environments. The company's strengths include its people-area
experts skilled in scientifically-based research and focused on client
solutions-its vast global network of local research partners and
contacts and its rich data archive of more than 670 media and opinion
surveys carried out over the past 15 years.

Survey Details: InterMedia conducted a nationally representative
survey of 2,000 face-to face interviews in Armenia between 22 January
and 27 February 2008. Maximum margin of error, with a 95% confidence
interval, is +/-2.2%.

Russian
trade representative in Armenia, Alexander Zaitsev, said today Russian
companies have invested a total of $2.8 billion in Armenia since 2009
July.Speaking to Armenian reporters after the official opening of the
third annual Russian industrial exposition in Armenia- EXPO-RUSSIA
ARMENIA.- he said investments rose by 16% in the first six months of
this year. According to him, Russian investments in construction of a
new nuclear power unit in Armenia will raise the figure to $5 billion.
There are about 1,400 companies in Armenia with Russian capital. Earlier
Armenian prime minister Tigran Sarkisian said Russia accounted for
sixty percent of all foreign investments in Armenia since it gained
independence. According to Armenian government data, Russian investments
in Armenia in January-June 2010 rose to around $117 million, including
$86 million of direct investments, which made 35.7% of all investments
in the real sector of economy and 38.95% of all direct investments.
Compared to the same period of time last year direct investments grew by
5.1%.

The
Forbes magazine has made a ranking of countries with bad economies.
This is a real revolution: this year a list of ten countries includes
three representatives of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Residents of Armenia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan will be very surprised to
know that their economies can't stand comparison with Swaziland or
Nicaragua. The Moscow-based news resource Lenta.ru says, that the
methodology of ranking by Forbes magazine raises many questions. The
resource notes, that the name of the ranking "The World's Worst
Economies" is not clear, as the word "worst" is an appraisal word, it
shouldn't be used in a ranking that claims to be objective.

What
means the "worst" economy? It's a combination of several factors: high
inflation, lower GDP growth, the smallest GDP per capita and a
negative trade balance. The ranking of the magazine is based on data
from the International Monetary Fund, an information for the three past
years and 2012 forecasts. Lenta.ru supposes, that this may cause a
distorted picture of world's economies, as the research of the IMF was
made in March, 2011, but since that time a lot of things have changed,
for example, a devalvation in Belarus, which led to a jump in inflation
and an impoverishment of the population.

In
addition, Lenta.ru notes, that all the indicators are not reduced to a
common denominator, this causes a misunderstanding of the distribution
of the places in the ranking. Thus, Armenia was ranked second in this
rating, having an index of 3000 dollars per-capita GDP and an inflation
at 7%. "With a mediocre growth forecast for the next few years, this
landlocked former Soviet republic, dependent upon Russia and Iran for
virtually all of its energy supplies, is struggling to keep up with the
rest of the world", says Forbes. At the same time Lenta notes, that
Guinea was ranked the third, although per-capits GDP in this country is
nearly seven times smaller and inflation is running at several points
higher.

The
appearance of Armenia in the ranking of The World's Worst Economies
may seem surprising. In the ranking of economic freedom in 2010 the
country won 38th place (the third result after other former USSR
countries), in the ranking of the corruption countries Armenia was
better than Russia and Belarus. Nevertheless, the crisis has exposed
massive problems in the economy of Armenia. In addition, the country is
in an incredible dependence on Russia. According to the Forbes, "Russia
cut back on supplies of diamonds, hurting Armenia’s once-thriving
diamond-processing industry".

Touching
Ukraine, it may be noted, that the country suffered a lot from the
financial crisis and it is dependent on supplies of raw materials from
Russia. The economy of the state has difficulties (corruption and poor
judicial system). However, Ukraine is situated between Russia and
Europe and earns from transit. The country also is a major market for
European goods and it is a tourist center of the CIS.

The columnists of Forbes say they've analyzed the situation in 177
countries of the world, but only 10 entered the top of the worst. The
first place took Madagascar. Ukraine is number four. According to the
Forbes, the country "has rich farmland and generous mineral resources
and could become a leading European economy — yet per-capita GDP trails
far behind even countries like Serbia and Bulgaria".

Novye Izvestia: Yerevan used the Independence Day military paradeto send a message to Baku, Azerbaijan

General
public in Yerevan was somewhat perplexed to see Russian servicemen
participating in the Independence Day parade side by side with the
Armenian military. The Armenian authorities said that there was nothing
in it to act so surprised about. Some Armenian patriots screamed of
vile encroachment on national sovereignty. Experts attributed this
development to deterioration of the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.

That
servicemen of the Russian 102nd Military Base in Gyumri would also
participate in the military parade had never been announced in advance.
The Armenians therefore were stunned to see the Russians participating
in the parade and Defense Minister Sejran Ogenesjan greeting them in
Russian. Razmik Zograbjan, deputy of the parliamentary faction of the
ruling Republican Party, said at the press conference afterwards that
the Russians' participation in the parade had been a political
gesture."We have a treaty with Russia regarding security of the
Armenian state borders. There is nothing wrong therefore with the
Russians taking part in the military parade." Journalists got the
message. Deterioration of the relations with Azerbaijan is the talk of
the day in Armenia. The Azerbaijani-Armenian negotiations came to a
halt. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev missed the CIS summit and a
meeting with his Armenian opposite number Serj Sargsjan in Dushanbe in
early September. It is logical therefore that the Armenians used the
Independence Day parade to remind Azerbaijan of their military might -
and of its ally.The Armenian opposition used social networks
to organize a protest rally not long before the parade. Twelve (!)
people turned up, headed by Levon Barsegjan of the journalistic club
Asparez from Gyumri. The protesters wielded posters "Armenia is not
Russia" and "No foreigners in our military parade".

Source: Novye Izvestia, No 170, September 22, 2011, p. 2

Russia In Talks To Supply Armenia With Iskander-M Missiles As Battle Lines Drawn Across Europe

Russia is poised to sign a contract with the Armenian military to provide Iskander-M short-range
ballistic missiles, reported Tass, a Kremlin-owned Russian website, on
Thursday. The supply of weapons, and long-range missiles in particular,
to its former Soviet allies underlines Russia’s continued influence in
Eastern Europe and showcases its growing military reach on the
ever-fractured continent. "The contract has not been signed, talks are underway," a military
source told Tass, while also mentioning that "all information on such
contracts is secret."

Since annexing Crimea in April 2014 and becoming involved in eastern
Ukraine a month later, Russia has managed to drive a wedge between East
and West, drawing on allegiances from former Soviet Republics such as
Moldova, Armenia and Belarus. But the defense sales also give Russia
breathing space as EU-led sanctions imposed for its indiscretions in
Europe continue to drag its recession-hit economy down. The falling
price of oil earlier this year also has hurt Moscow’s spending power.

In addition to defense deals in Europe, Moscow is selling its hardware to customers such as India, Pakistan, China and Iran, much to the displeasure of the United States and Europe as both are currently negotiating with Iran
over lifting financial sanctions there in exchange for Western-led
inspections on Tehran’s nuclear facilities. KBM, the company that builds
the Iskander-M missile, said the systems
will not be ready until 2016 at the earliest. In recent months, Saudi
Arabia and Kazakhstan have shown interest in purchasing the missile
too.

Speaking on Russia 1TV this week,
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, head of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia,
called on Putin’s government to support Armenians in liberating western
territories long controlled by Turkey. “Armenians could do that in 1918 if Moscow supported them, but it
[Moscow] was on the Turkish side,”

Zhirinovsky said. “If we allow
Armenians to liberate their western territories, they will be glad to do
that,” he said. Zhirinovsky, a controversial ultra-nationalist politician, has a
reputation for making bellicose – and often crude and vulgar –
statements that have caused detractors to refer to him as the Clown
Prince of Russian Politics. Among his tamer demands is that Russia
forcibly take back Alaska because it would be “a great place to keep the
Ukranians.” His outsider rhetoric, notwithstanding, Zhirinovsky and his
party are seen as “an instrument of the Kremlin,” according to the
Foreign Policy Journal, rarely diverging from the legislative proposals
drafted by the “party of power.”

Despite episodes of fistfights in the Russian legislative chamber or
putting opponents in headlocks, Zhirinovsky is a colonel in the Russian
army, vice-chairman of the lower house of Russia’s legislature, a member
of the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, and founder and leader
of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia since 1991. Zhirinovsky
finished third in Russia’s first presidential election in 1991 and his
party captured nearly 23 percent of the vote in 1993. His party’s
platform is based on restoring the Russian empire. Zhirinovsky is a
Turkologist by profession. Following the Armenian genocide of 1915, Turkey applied the name
“Eastern Anatolia” to what had long been known as Western Armenia. It is
that territory Zhirinovsky believes should be repatriated.

The
politician also called on Russia to support the Kurds in their desire
for independence from Turkey. “Kurds expect our support. If we tell the
Kurds that we recognize
their independence, their population reaches, as we know, to 20 million,
and the capital is already known, it is Diyarbakir. Hence, Eastern
Anatolia will cease to exist in the form we know. As a result, there
will be independent Kurdistan and Great Armenia,” he said. Whether
Zhirinovsky’s ultranationalist proposal will gather support
remains to be seen, but another initiative by Russian lawmakers is
certain to anger Turkey. Sergei Mironov, chairman of upper house of the
Russian parliament,
said Wednesday his party, Fair Russia, has submitted a bill “on holding
to account” anyone who denies the 1915 killings of Armenians by Ottoman
Turkish forces was “genocide.”

“We have just submitted a bill on responsibility for failure to
acknowledge the fact of a genocide of Armenians by Turkey in 1915,”
Mironov tweeted. Adding fuel to the fire, Russia’s State Duma has given support to the
idea of Turkey returning Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia Cathedral to the
Christian church, Reuters reported. Sergey Gavrilov, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF)
representative and coordinator of inter-faction deputy group on
protecting Christian values, suggested Turkey do something tangible to
restore good will following the shootdown of Russia’s jet.

“We expect from the Turkish side a friendly step – to return the
Hagia Sophia Cathedral to the Christian church” said Gavrilov. “The
Russian side is ready to participate materially, and also to engage the
best Russian restorers and scientists to the restoration of the
ecumenical Christian monument. This step would help Turkey and Islam to
demonstrate that the good will is above politics.”

Joint Defense System With Armenia to 'Keep Russia Safe From ISIL, NATO'

Ten days ago, the Russian
government worked out a joint missile air defense system with Armenia in
the region. Afterwards, the government in Yerevan confirmed the
upcoming visit of Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in Armenia in
later November to officially sign the new defense deal between the two
countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin made a brilliant move, as by
signing the agreement with Armenia Russia essentially killed two birds
with one stone. First of all, Russia would boost its southern borders,
as Moscow becomes more militarily involved in Syria. The possibility of
ISIL jihadists slipping into Russia's southern Islamic republics is
still a concern for Moscow.

"Moscow
is keen to increase its ability to monitor its southern borders — a
goal that a military presence in Armenia, with its proximity to the
Middle East, is ideally suited to achieve," Stratfor reported.

Secondly,
as NATO's increased activity in Eastern Europe and Turkey frustrates
Moscow, Russia's joint defense system with Armenia is intended to
counter the Western alliance's military buildup near Russian borders,
the US intelligence company explained. The Russo-Armenian military
cooperation in the Southern Caucasus would certainly upset Turkey's
ambitions in the region.Furthermore, as Georgia is moving closer to the
West — the country recently opened a NATO training center and regularly
holds joint military exercises with the US Army — Russia made a good
move by signing the joint defense agreement with Armenia, thus enhancing
Moscow's military presence in the region, Stratfor said.

"It
would also be located in a geopolitically complex region where many
other regional players have significant strategic interests," Stratfor
commented about the Russo-Armenian cooperation in the Southern Caucasus.
In late September, despite not being a NATO member, Georgia became a
member of the NATO Response Force (NRF).

The
NRF is a technologically-advanced high-readiness unit comprising land,
air, and maritime forces within the alliance. The initiative was
launched in 2002, and members created an operational group in 2014, as a
response to changing security needs. Finland, Sweden and Ukraine also
participate in the NRF program.

“I don’t think OSCE MG activities should be optimistically or pessimistically expressed. We should acknowledge that the conflict should be settled by the conflict sides,” Russian political expert Albert Zulkharneev referred to NK conflict resolution in a talk with “Day.az. He said neither Moscow, nor Washington
or Paris could do anything if their recommendations are disliked by
the conflict sides. The expert said the conflict can be settled only by
the conflict sides. “I’ve been Baku recently, then I met with Armenian
representatives in Moscow, and, I should point, regretfully, that the
dispositions of the sides are far from being close,” Russian expert
said. To the question how Russia
would act if a war starts, he said: “Everything depends on the
situation. Moscow understands they have no other ally except Yerevan,
and if they don’t support Armenia, they would have tough disposition
beyond the CSTO states.”

Russian Deputy Speaker: “Russia Has Every Reason to Recognize Artsakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, And Transdnestr”

“The
international situation has given us a positive example – if Albanians
receive the right to establish their own independent state in the
foreign territory, so ancient Armenian people must perhaps receive the
right to restore the territory;” leader of the Russian Liberal
Democratic Party, Deputy Speaker of Russian State Duma Vladimir
Zhirinovsky is quoted by a REGNUM correspondent as stating in Moscow,
speaking at the third Russia’s Armenian Union (RAU) Congress. “Yes, we
pity Serbs, but it is a positive signal for the international community –
it is a positive signal for Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh – REGNUM), for
Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transdnestr,” Zhirinovsky continued.

According to him, if the international community recognizes Kosovo and
Montenegro, Russia will have every reason to recognize analogous
territories, especially as it has more rights for that, because these
republics were parts of the Russian Empire, and now they pretend to
restore their legal personalities. “It may not be denied – it is the
international law,” he stated. As Vladimir Zhirinovsky stressed,
addressing to the Russian Armenians Union (RAU) Congress deputies and
guests, “the Armenian people have already been suffering for 100 years,
and it is necessary to achieve adoption of at least one international
organization’s resolution on returning territories to Armenian state by
2015, the 100th anniversary of those awful events.”

“It is not enough to
recognize the Genocide; the territories should be returned. Those ones,
who are living there now, should be returned to Ashgabat and Tashkent —
what does one people need two states for? And territories should be
returned to Armenia and Kurdistan. Kurds are betrayed people too – they
have been expecting for 100 years,” the LDPR leader said. Also, he
called the RAU to be more active in the Russian provinces and to
cooperate with Russian political and non-governmental organizations in
order to explain to young generation of Russians that “Armenians are our
brothers; they are Christians, and they have been living side by side
with Russians for hundreds of years.” Zhirinovsky called on the RAU to
cooperate for realization of other socially vital initiatives.

Viktor Nadein-Rayevsky: If Russia yields Armenia, it will lose all of its positions in the Caucasus

Senior
researcher of the Institute of World Economy and International
Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences Viktor Nadein-Rayevsky
answers REGNUM’s questions:

REGNUM:
Mr. Nadein-Rayevsky, presently Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
is paying a visit to Turkey and Turkish President Ahmed Necet Sezer is
going to shortly visit Russia. The sides are speaking about strategic
cooperation – basically, in energy. What do you think about
Russian-Turkish relations and the prospects of their development?The
strategy term is hardly applicable to Russian-Turkish relations. Russia
and Turkey have never had any strategy in the past, do not have it in
the present and will hardly have it in the future. Turkey was the first
who tried to bring in some strategy in bilateral relations: in 1990
Ankara attempted to make a strategic alliance with the Soviet Union, but
decided to take time when it collapsed. The Turks hoped that now they
would be able to enlarge relations already with the post-Soviet
republics and with some of them to use the factor of common Turkic
origin and language. They planned this almost the way Ataturk planned,
but they failed: the newly independent nations turned out to be quite
different in mentality and culture. Historically, Turkey itself is
responsible for the gradual distancing between the Turkic nations: they
first regarded themselves as Ottomans, then, under Abdul Hamid II, they
proclaimed pan-Islamism, then, they still preferred pan-Turkism and
brought into power Young Turks, who joined Germany during the WWI – so
much eager they were to expand. Everything what happened after 1991 was,
to a certain extent, the consequence of this pan-Turkic policy.
Pan-Turkism proved impracticable – it was like Communism. Not that the
national elites of the Turkic republics were just unready to give up
power, they were simply unwilling to do that: to give power, money and
economy for some idea – nobody will agree to this. Ankara saw that there
is absolutely no basis for pan-Turkism. Roughly speaking, they faced
the same we faced with our Slavonic brothers in XIX. As regards Russia,
as I have already said, it was mainly Turkey who tried to bring up
bilateral relations to the level of strategic cooperation. The first
Ankara’s proposal in 1990 was rejected by the Soviet authorities as they
took it as an attempt to interfere in the Soviet influence zone, which
was right. Turkey raised this issue again in 1995, when its pan-Turkic
policy ran across some impassable barriers – but our position was the
same. It was then that Turkey began realizing that 90% of its ties in
the Soviet area were with Russia and no Uzbekistan could replace the
millions of dollars it got from shuttle trade. It turned out that
language is not the main thing. The main thing is economic interests –
the lives of people and the life of a nation. This is the very principle
the present Russian-Turkish ties are based on. The key link between
Russia and Turkey has been and is economy. Already before the big energy
projects, like the Blue Flow, Turkey got $6 bln-$15 bln from shuttle
trade alone, and it was the key source of income for its economy for
quite a long time.REGNUM:
The first thing that comes in mind when one speaks of Turkey’s trade
policy is Turkish “fast moving consumer goods.” Is this problem still
topical for the Russian consumers, if yes, how serious is it?In
1995 we warned the Turks that they should not trade with us the way they
did, that they should raise the quality of their goods to the European
standards, that our consumers were buying Turkish goods only because of
hard social conditions, that they would no longer buy them as soon as
they got better-off, that Turkey could lose our market. In the following
years Turkey faced default but still preserved its shuttle trade.
Later, suitcase sellers were replaced by firms trading in big lots and
paying taxes. It was already an improvement. The quality control was
also improved. Now Turkey is trying to make quality the basis of its
trade as it clearly understands that it can get in the situation the
Georgian and Moldavian wines got in. One should always care for the
quality of his exports rather than just allege that Russia does
something for political motives. Our relations With Georgia have been
tensed for many years already — but what we actually want is to,
finally, taste a normal Georgian wide. Russia is fighting with all low
quality producers and with home producers it is even tougher than with
foreigners. I think we are right as it is high time to stop high
mortality caused by faked alcohol – to stop the death of tens of
thousands of people every year. The same was the situation with the
American chicken legs – the row was big but they solved the problem. The
US raised the quality control standards. Why could they do this and
Georgia and Moldova can’t? This is a national issue, and when the
Russian president spoke about demography he meant there will be no
indulgence – for Turkey either.REGNUM:
They in Armenia are worried with any closer contacts between Russia and
Turkey? Can Russian-Turkish relations be bad for Armenia?Russia
will never cede Armenia for improving its relations with Turkey. This
is a matter of principle. There are things one can sacrifice, but there
are things one cannot. The point is not so much that two million
Armenians live in Russia and many of them are Russian citizens. For
Armenia Russia’s steps must never be bad. The point is that even the
Yeltsin Russia perfectly realized that it must not waive Armenia’s
interests, not mentioning Putin, who clearly sees the national
interests, at least, the clear ones. He is trying to extrapolate them
for the future. I simply can’t imagine that Russia may yield Armenia –
if Russia does this it will lose all of its positions in the Caucasus.
Russia should understand one most important thing – there are partners
and allied countries with whom one should keep up the sense of alliance
and duty.REGNUM: How
could you explain the outburst of activity of the Iranian Azeris?
Large-scale destabilization – is it possible and what consequences it
may have?There are several versions. Northern Iran has two
provinces with some 12 mln-18 mln Azeri residents. Iranian Azeris are
not outcasts in Iran. Iran is a multi-national and multi-religious
country and Azeris have their serious place there. Even the religious
leader of Iran Ayatollah Khamenei is Azeri. The basic principle in Iran
is religion rather than nationality. Iran’s official version is that the
protest actions are an American project. They probably have proofs, but
I don’t believe this. My personal opinion is that this is an Iranian
project, or the result of local nationalism, or a preventive action to
neutralize a potentially unreliable element. In any case, many complex
processes are taking place in Iran – many people are displeased with the
tyranny of mullahs who dictate a lifestyle nobody accepts any longer
outside Iran. Obviously, there is tension and there is need for reforms.
At best, this situation may end in reforms and, if the Iranian
authorities prove wise enough to carry them out, everything will be OK.
Of course, the Americans can capitalize on this tension. They can use
any social tension to plot a revolution, which is all but good for Iran.REGNUM: How much probable is the US’ active invasion of Iran or its preventive strikes on its nuclear facilities?Though
I don’t believe this will happen, I prefer to call this hypothetical
action “a possible American stupidity.” The strikes by Israel or US
groups will spark off numerous mostly unpredictable scenarios. One thing
is clear – there will be no internal explosion. The Iranian authorities
will be able to unite their people against the foreign enemy, to stop
all reforms, which will mean an end to the hopes of the democratic part
of the Iranian society. It seems that the Americans do not realize this,
they are like an elephant in a china-shop. For them the invasion of
Iran is an initially counterproductive action. They will immediately
lose the confidence of the Shiahs — 55%-60% of the Iraqis. As a result,
they will get a collapsing coalition and anti-American southern Iraq.REGNUM: What are the chances that Turkey may join the anti-Iranian coalition?I
very much doubt that it will. Turkey is wise enough not to get there as
this would be a suicide. This would mean to blow up the 10-12 mln
Kurds, to blow up Shiahs – a total of 1/3 of the Turkish population.
This would be a fatal trick. The Turks are wise politicians and they
will not get into this bog exactly now that their economy is coming out
of crisis. The Iraqi example has shown that it is very hard to insure
oneself from the American stupidity. They got into a mess in Iraq though
they could get what they wanted – oil – in a more civilized manner.
Relying on force, they could not imagine that cities can also be a
serious arena for guerrilla war, they were not ready for that. As
regards the South Caucasus, here the major risk is the flow of refugees
who may simply overwhelm the region in case of bad scenario.

Nagorno-Karabakh will come to recognition sooner or later. Karabakh
will not return within Azerbaijan’’, Konstantin Zatulin, the deputy
Chairman of Russia’s State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Director of
the Institute of CIS Studies, stated in the course of a news conference
held at the Novosti Press Center today. According to Zatulin,
Azerbaijanis are also aware of the fact. However, in his words, the
Azerbaijani politicians cannot exceed the established limits.
Nevertheless, presenting, in his words, Russia’s official stand, Zatulin
noted that Russia was not ready to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh’s
independence, especially taking into consideration that Armenia had not
done it yet. ‘’However, my own stand is as follows: it is possible not
to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh de jure as much as one likes, however, it
de facto exists’’, Konstantin Zatulin noted. At that, in Konstantin
Zatulin’s words, no one can prove that nations’ right to
self-determination yields priority to territorial integrity’s principle.
Zatulin is sure that the final word rests with people, if they
consistently display their will.

Strategic
relations between Armenia and Russia are on the highest
level, Nikolay Patrushev, the secretary of Russia’s Security Council,
told reporters in Yerevan. Nikolai Patrushev and his Armenian
counterpart, Arthur Baghdasaryan,
signed today a number of agreements relating to defense and security. “A
respective legal base is necessary for active and efficient
cooperation,” said the Russian official. Speaking of Russian arms sales
to Azerbaijan, Patrushev said that
Russia, selling weapons, observes its international commitments and
requirements as well as Russian laws. “Besides, we have strategic
relations with Armenia. During this
visit, we toured the Russian military base and made sure that our
servicemen, our army and border guard firmly defend the security of
Armenia, and you need not worry about ensuring the security of the
country. There are sufficient resources and might there, and we have
checked it together,” Patrushev concluded.

Turkey
should not link the normalization of its relations with Armenia to
further progress in international efforts to resolve the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on
Wednesday. Putin also reaffirmed Moscow’s support for Turkey’s dramatic
rapprochement with Armenia, his country’s main regional ally, after
talks with his visiting Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. [...]
The Karabakh conflict was expected to be on the agenda of Erdogan’s
talks with Putin and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Speaking at a
Moscow diplomatic academy earlier in the day, Erdogan implicitly urged
the Russians to do more to broker a Karabakh settlement. He said they
can become “the most important actor” in the Karabakh peace process. The
Turkish premier’s high-profile visit focused on growing Russian-Turkish
energy cooperation. Medvedev described Moscow’s current rapport with
Ankara as “strategic partnership.”

Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Armenia will add nothing new
to the geopolitical alignment in the region. It will merely restate the
obvious. The strategic partnership between Armenia and Iran is an
established fact, and this visit is unlikely to be seen as anything of a
landmark. Nor will it affect relations between Armenia and the United
States. Armenia is effectively under a blockade, and America knows this.
One of the indirect agents of the blockade is Georgia - America's
closest ally in the region. More direct participants are other U.S.
partners - Azerbaijan and Turkey. In this context, friendly relations
between Iran and Armenia are only natural. Whether one likes it or not,
Armenia will be friendly with neighbors with which circumstances,
history and common cultural background force it to be friends.

Until
recently the U.S. has displayed some understanding of this fact. True,
Anthony Godfrey, the U.S. Charge d'Affaires in Armenia, has occasionally
expressed dissatisfaction with expanding Armenian-Iranian relations and
growing economic ties between Armenia and Iran, although the U.S. is
well aware of Armenia's plight, and it would be most unethical to demand
that it go into self-imposed isolation. Armenia therefore looks for
understanding not only from America, but also from any other country
that has sour relations with Iran. In this sense, an aggravation of
American-Iranian relations and, as a result, a possible toughening of
the U.S. position would be most unwelcome.It is to be hoped that
there will be no further deterioration of relations between Tehran and
Washington, and even if there is, the U.S. has no right and is unlikely
to demand anything "extra" from Armenia in its relationship with Iran.
It would be a different thing if hostilities were to break out -
Armenia's border with Iran would automatically be sealed. That could
lead to serious consequences for the Armenian economy. As regards Baku's
likely response to the visit, Azerbaijan is in the habit of reacting
negatively to any progress in Armenia's relations with any country, let
alone Iran.Azerbaijan has been an active participant in many
regional projects with a manifest anti-Iranian and anti-Russian bias.
They include communications projects, oil pipelines, gas pipelines, and
Caspian oil production. In other words even today Azerbaijan continues
to pursue Elchibey's policies of tearing up all possible friendly bonds
with a country that has a multi-millennium civilization and culture.
Azerbaijan is seeking to integrate into Europe via the Turkic world.
Such a policy cannot appeal to Iran and runs contrary to Iran's
political and geopolitical ambitions. Therefore, the envy with which
Baku eyes Armenia's friendly and allied relations with Iran, is both
understandable and incomprehensible.It is incomprehensible
because Azerbaijan itself has done a great deal to antagonize Iran. In
turn, Armenia's relations with Iran are a fine example of the fact that
Christianity and Islam can co-exist peacefully, and that the religious
factor in inter-ethnic and inter-state relations needn't play a decisive
role. In any case, the Iranian side will continue to stick to its long
considered position on the Karabakh issue. Iran, like China, is happy to
wait, and as far as possible safeguard its borders against potential
inter-ethnic or inter-state clashes. This centuries-tested policy is
unlikely to be subject to change for short-term considerations.Iran
has always had ethnic, cultural and purely strategic interests in the
Southern Caucasus. When the Turkic peoples destroyed Caucasian Albania,
Armenia was Iran's only remaining ally in the region. An absolute loss
of the Southern Caucasus would be a tragedy both for Iran and for
Russia. Equally, the preservation of the Southern Caucasus as a friendly
region is very important for both Tehran and Moscow. Both countries
have historical interests and traditional contacts with the peoples of
the region. But today only Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh continue the
tradition of Caucasian friendship with Iran and Russia. And while Iran
acts as the corridor giving Armenia "access to the wider world", Armenia
serves as the bridge linking Tehran and Moscow. This is a worthy role,
and Armenia plays it without fault. A Moscow-Yerevan-Tehran axis appears
to be crystallizing. It looks as though Iran projects Russia's
geopolitical ambitions in this region and vice versa.Both Iran
and Russia are being ostracized from European politics, and in these
conditions they have no other option but to seek closer contact with
each other and align a geopolitical, energy and economic axis capable of
helping them to withstand pressure from Europe. Although the East-West
division is nowadays somewhat artificial, classical Oriental countries
carry on the ancient traditions of wise and considered inter-state
policy. India, China and Iran, for that matter, are all countries with
which alliance could only benefit Russia.

While
these unrecognized states , namely Abkhazia and Nagorno Karabakh, are
in danger of existence, there is wide disbelief that Russia has no
effective measures left to restrain the advance of the USA and its
allies on the post-Soviet terrain, which hurts Russia’s national
and state interests. So far, Russian has been carrying on with the
“mini-empires”, agreeing with their ridiculous proofs of ‘rights’
on the lands of neighboring peoples. These lands, which, in
reality, until recently did not belong to them. I am confident that
public and policy statements on the highest levels defending the
sovereign rights of the smaller nations could spearhead negotiations
between some former Soviet republics and their former autonomies on
the structure of their new relations in a reasonable framework.
But Moscow still refuses to do that. Nevertheless it is about time
to learn to distinguish among the ‘real, true allies’, simply
partner and those, who look at the other side. We should not be
afraid to offer support to those whose interests coincide with
ours.

It is significantly
important to recognize that we are constantly being provoked to
argue and undermine our relationship with our strategic allies. The Pro
Azeri lobby in Moscow has been especially active in these attempts,
doing all they can to drive Russia away from Armenia. These groups
present the Turkish-oriented Azerbaijan as “the Russian basis in
the Caucasus.” At the same time we are being threatened with NATO
military bases on Apsheron and a new war against NKR, if the latter
refuses to dissolve itself as an independent state and accept sham
autonomy within Azerbaijan. Pro Azeri lobbyists use lies and scare
tactics, hoping that our memories are short. Suddenly, the
infamous Mutalibov has remembered the “tragedy of Khodjali, when in
February of 1992 hundreds of civilians were slaughtered in Nagorno
Karabakh as a result of a joint operation of the Armenian military
groups and 366th motor-division of the Russian Army.” But back in
1992, Mutalibov himself had admitted that “the tragedy of Khodjali”
was, in essence, a provocation carried out not by Armenians but by
Elchibei’s bandits against his presidency (see his interview for
NG April 2, 92). Why would Mutalibov remember the old lies of
Elchibei propaganda now? The answer is clear: to destroy
Russian-Armenian relations. Those feeding from the Azeri lobby push
Moscow to help Azerbaijan to fulfill their plans of annexing NKR
territory.

The
protanganists throw an oft-used theory of alleged “Pro Western”
orientation of the present Armenian government into the controversy.
Yet, the official Yerevan line simply tries to diversify its
foreign ties, which is a reasonable and most rational way of
survival for Armenia. In the current circumstances, Armenia needs
neither “pro Western” nor “pro Russian” orientation. But it needs a
“pro Armenian” one. Russia should understand these nuances, in
which it is not able to assist Armenia fully. For example, would
Russia be capable of sustaining and providing regular humanitarian
aid, that amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars, and which
Armenia has been receiving from the USA for the past ten years now?
An honest appraisal will ensure Russia’s stance in the South Caucasus.
However, Russia still has other measures to strengthen its positions in
the Transcaucasus. One of those is a military cooperation,
including air defense and border patrol. In that region, we have
such presence only in Armenia. Another lever is to own industrial
and scientific property of strategic economic and social importance
in a country. Again Armenia reappears, as we are currently
conducting negotiations on these issues with the state government. A
third way is to effectively use the patronage offered by Russia to
the Armenians, in the Karabakh question. This should be done
without any fear of confrontation with Turkish-Azeri pressure,
conflicting with our interests, for it is strongly connected with the
far-fetched plans of pan-Turkism.

The
words of the Russian President, uttered in Yerevan in September 2001,
hold a special importance in light of these circumstances, i.e.:
“the whole policy of Russia in the region will be directed to
provide a reliable defense for Armenia;” and that the solution of
the Karabakh problem should be coming out of the present status
quo, by which “Russia, should not disturb the established balance
between Armenia and Azerbaijan.” I believe that to be the position
conforming to the Russian strategic interests. We should rid ourselves
of the bad habit of taking on trust everything that Azerbaijan
says. Here, we do business with a partner, who promises undying
friendship to Moscow and acts as a complete vassal of Turkey in Ankara
and conductor of pan-Turkism at home. Once we attempt to meet their
interests and give up Karabakh to them, they will not need us, for
the pan Turkism orientation of Baku is rooted deeply in its body.

All
of this is not a call to stop having any business with Azerbaijan and
impose any sanctions on the country. There are about three million
citizens of Azerbaijan, who live and work in Russia. Some of them
have become Russian citizens. Moreover, Azerbaijan is our neighbor.
A neighbor should be treated in a friendly, neighborly way,
despite the fact that it behaves otherwise. It is important to
promote trade, cultural exchange and cooperation in possible and
profitable areas. Nonetheless, we should not close our eyes and ignore
its true goals, especially if they contradict the Russian interests.
Armenia has been our strategic ally from the beginning and until the
present day. Therefore we should act towards it in an appropriate
fashion. We should be considerate of Armenia’s interests and
Karabakh’s interests, for without Karabakh there is no independent
and friendly Armenia. Furthermore, without the Armenians, Russia
would not have any positions in Transcaucasus. My idea of
Karabakh’s protectorate evolves exactly from that logic: we simply
ought to protect Karabakh, assist in all possible ways to strengthen
its security on its historical territory; that had its borders
distorted by the Russian Bolsheviks, demanding restoration now. The
entirety of NKR, deserves no lesser respect than entirety of
territories of any other state.

In
my view, the true settling of the Karabakh conflict suggests complete
rejection by Azerbaijan of the primal Armenian lands. It is possible
to resolve the problem of the refugees by providing them with
opportunities in places where they live now. How come in almost
every discussion on Karabakh the only refugees that are being
consistently mentioned are the Azeri refugees? Why can’t the
Armenians return to Baku, Gyandja, Sumgait, Artsvashen, Getashen,
etc.? It seems to me that the most optimal resolution of the Karabakh
problem is to legitimize the status quo within the borders on the
confrontation lines, set by the truce of 1994. Aside from the war
anything else is simply unrealistic. Azerbaijan pretty much hopes
for a war. However, a war is not going to deliver anything good
neither to the Armenians, nor to the Azeri people.

The
recent thaw in Russian-Azerbaijani relations seems to be coming to a
sudden end, as Azerbaijani media outlets circulate news of Russian arms
deliveries to Armenia in the amount of US$800 million. The news sparked
huge protests both among the Azerbaijani general public and politicians.
More importantly, it created a sense of treason among the political
leadership of Azerbaijan, which had been promised support from Russia in
the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian war. Such disappointment could
result in grave geopolitical shifts in the region and changes in
Azerbaijan’s foreign policy course towards NATO.

BACKGROUND:
On January 6, Azerbaijani media outlets reported that Russian defense
officials transferred weapons and other military hardware worth US$ 800
million to Armenia in 2008. The evidence consisted of a document
containing the signature of a Russian defense official and a detailed
list of the transferred weapons. As becomes clear from the document, the
weapons used to belong to a Russian military bases in Georgia, which
was later withdrawn in accordance with OSCE requirements and relocated
to Armenia. At that time, Russian political and military officials
responded to Azerbaijani concerns about the relocation by stating that
the weapons and other military equipment in the military base would
remain the property of the Russian Federation, and would not be
transferred to Armenia. “Russia promised Azerbaijan that the weapons
would not be given to Armenia,” says political analyst Rasim Musabekov.

The
current news had the effect of a thunderstorm from a blue sky.
Azerbaijani officials immediately reacted to the news by harshly
condemning the Russian actions and citing its negative consequences for
peace and stability in the region. Various members of Parliament, along
with renowned public figures and policy analysts, have written op-eds
and spoken on TV about this incident. For instance, Anar Mammadkhanov, a
Member of Parliament and close loyalist of President Ilham Aliyev,
referred to the sale as “unexplainable Kremlin boorishness.”

The
Azerbaijani Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense have launched an
investigation of the issue, which concluded that an illegal transfer of
weapons from Russia to Armenia has indeed taken place. The reaction was
very harsh. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Russian
ambassador to Azerbaijan and expressed deep frustration with the
incident. The press release of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said,
“The transferred weapons strengthen the military capacity of Armenia,
which occupies 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s territory. By doing this,
Russia violated its own promises and the UN General Assembly
resolutions.”

It
should be noted that it is not the first instance of Russian
“donations” of weapons and military equipment to Armenia, its strategic
ally and military outpost in the South Caucasus, which is a the only
member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization in the South
Caucasus. Back in 1997, a scandal erupted when the head of the Defense
Committee of the Russian Duma, Lev Rokhlin, discovered and announced
that Russia had illegally transferred weapons to Armenia in the amount
of US$1 billion. After Azerbaijan’s fierce protests, the Russian Defense
Ministry launched an investigation, but has to date failed to punish
the officers responsible. Rokhlin himself was subsequently killed in a
mysterious accident and the issue was largely forgotten.

After
the recent incident, Azerbaijanis again recalled the incident of the
late 1990s. “Only God knows how many other transfers Russia has made to
Armenia, both legally and illegally,” says Ilgar Mammadov, a Baku-based
political analyst, in his blog. It is not clear where all these weapons
are stored. If they are stored in Armenia, it is questionable how this
corresponds to the limitations imposed by the Treaty on Conventional
Armed Forces in Europe. It seems that Armenia has previously been
exceeding the quotas of this treaty. One way to circumvent this problem
could be to transfer the weapons to Nagorno-Karabakh, which continues to
remain an soon after unmonitored zone by international organizations.
If this would be the case, the conflict zone becomes even more
militarized, significantly reducing chances for a peaceful resolution.

Most
government officials are convinced that despite all the peace rhetoric,
Russia continues to arm Armenia and remain interested in maintaining
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict unresolved. The incident is especially
damaging since it was reported only one month after President Aliyev
signed the Moscow Declaration on Nagorno-Karabakh together with Russian
President Medvedev and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan. Although
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov phoned his Azerbaijani
counterpart Elmar Mammadyarov to convince him that no such transfer has
taken place, the Azerbaijan side is convinced otherwise.

IMPLICATIONS:
It is clear that the weapons transfer incident will play an extremely
damaging role in Russia-Azerbaijan relations. These relations have been
improving in the past several years, with President Ilham Aliyev
reaching out to Moscow and downplaying his NATO aspirations in favor of
accommodating Russian interests and building pragmatic relations with
the Kremlin. Economic cooperation and trade between Russia and
Azerbaijan reached its highest levels in 2008. President Medvedev
visited Baku and expressed an interest in buying all Azerbaijan’s gas.
President Aliyev visited Moscow on a number of occasions and expressed
an interest in building deeper and more constructive relations with
Moscow.

On
the one hand, this was done to improve the chances for a peaceful
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Moscow is one of the
co-chairs of the Minsk group and an influential partner of Armenia). On
the other hand, Aliyev sincerely wanted to help Russia improve its image
on the international arena. For instance, during the Georgian-Russian
conflict, Aliyev refrained from accusing Russia of aggression. He
subsequently signed the Moscow Declaration – not a breakthrough in the
peace negotiations as sometimes suggested, but nevertheless a boost for
the Kremlin’s image as a peace broker in the South Caucasus following
its invasion of Georgia. All of these gestures were aimed at winning
Moscow’s favor.

After
this incident, frustration among the political leadership in Baku is
obvious. It is perhaps a wake-up call for the Azerbaijani public and
officials, who increasingly believe that Moscow will always be guided by
zero-sum games and interested in maintaining the conflicts in the
former Soviet space unresolved, and that Moscow will continue to support
Armenia despite the fact that it stands to gain much more by acting as a
neutral player in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

After
the Russian-Georgian war last August, there had been some hope in Baku
that Moscow might alter its blatant support for Armenia and become more
cooperative in seeking to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In
return, Azerbaijan would desist from following Georgia’s path to NATO
membership, and Azerbaijan would deliver its gas to Russia rather than
to the Nabucco pipeline project. Importantly, voices calling for that
have now vanished. Indeed, the voices in Baku promoting broader security
arrangements with NATO and the EU, and viewing Euro-Atlantic
integration as the only way to ensure stability in the South Caucasus
are gaining ground. That in turn takes place just as the U.S. has signed
documents on strategic partnership with both Georgia and Ukraine.

CONCLUSIONS: In
the aftermath of the war in Georgia, Azerbaijani officials were
evidently greatly frustrated with the weak reaction of the West and
Turkey’s submissive attitude to Moscow. (See 3 September CACI Analyst)
Briefly, Baku flirted with the idea of making a deal with Russia on
both gas supplies and the Karabakh conflict. Yet the discovery of huge
Russian arms deliveries to Armenia not only force Azerbaijan to purchase
more weapons and thus further militarize the region – it deals serious
damage to Russian-Azerbaijani relations at a personal level. Russia’s
actions are now interpreted as irrational, emotional and unpredictable
behavior. Baku’s flirt with Moscow seems resolutely over, which could
rejuvenate its ties with the West – if the West is interested in
investing in ties to Baku.

In Late 2008 Russia Delivered to Armenia Arms in the Amount of $800 Million

Day.Az has asked some questions on this topic among some deputies of Milli Medjlis of Azerbaijan:

Deputy chairman of the parliamentary commission on issues of defense and security Aydin Mirzazade:"It
can be featured only as international scandal. One of the conflict
parties is supplied with different weapons in the amount of about
$800,000,000. Considering the fact that currently the annual military
budget of Armenia makes $400,000,000 is turning into a large military
storehouse. At the same time considering the fact that Russia is one of
the co-chairs of the OSCR Minsk Group, which is bound to mediate in the
peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict, the position of our
northern neighbor is surprising. It is unclear to the Azerbaijani
community, why it is done so and what international law is takaen as a
basis. Russia must mediate and adhere to a just position, which implies
the return of 20% of Armenian occupied lands to Azerbaijan. Russia must
be interested in the demilitarization of this region. But instead of it
we see that our strategic ally supplies the occupant with weapons in the
large amount. The aim of this armament is clear - it is Azerbaijan,
occupation of new lands, destabilization of the situation in the region.
We would like to get a clear response from Russia. It is clear that
Armenia purchases weapons from Russia. But its supply with such a great
volume of arms can affect the situation in the region. We demand the
return of these arms and Armenia's demilitarization. This contradicts to
the Moscow declaration, undersigned by the President of Russia. What is
that? The protest against the Moscow declaration by some circles of
Russia or provocation against the Russian President? Anyway, those
responsible for these provocation must be found, their names made public
and they must be punished".

Deputy Zahid Oruc:"I
think Russia's actions contradict to international documents it joins
it. Though they try to explain their actions as being legal in the
framework of the CSTO with Armenia, anyway, this is a violation of
international norms. Russia's policy on Armenia's militarization can be
qualified the lack of Russia's interest in the peaceful resolution of
the conflicts in the South Caucasus. This allows other geopolitical
plays to undertake adequate steps. Russia's such actions make possible
the access of military circles from other countries to our region, as
any country will try to restore the violated military balance by other
alternative ways. Therefore, Azerbaijan and Georgia can search other
variants of their security and try to distance from Georgia. This is not
the first time when Georgia supplies Armenia with arms in a significant
amount free of charge. In the 1990s late general Lev Rokhlin revealed
the free supply of arms in the amount of $ 1 bln to Armenia. I think
Ryussia must respond about its actions as they damage their mediation
activity on the peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict".Deputy Asim Mollazade:"It
should be reminded that the issue of supply of arms in a greater amount
of money from Russia to Armenia was discussed in the 1990s. Now they
have transferred arms in the amount of $800,000,000, which proves that
the aggressor is armed and therefore, less arms is supplied. I think
that Azerbaijan must draw attention of the world community and
international organizations so that to make it clear who is an aggressor
and who is behind it all".Deputy Jamil Hasanly:"This
fact can not be a surprize for us. I think that the country, which
supplies Armenia with arms in the amount of $800 mln to Armenia, has no
moral right to be one of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group".Deputy Gudrat Hasaquliyev:"This
fact proves once again that Russia continue to supply arms to the CIS
state, which has been occupying a part of another CID country. This is
another fact proving that earlier Russia acted the same way. This proves
that Russia does not support friendly relations with Azerbaijan, as it
says, unilaterally supports Armenia and is not interested in the fair
resolution of the Karabakh conflict. I think the Azerbaijani government
must raise this issue in UN, OSCE, in particular in the OSCE Minsk
Group". It should be noted that due to the New Year vacations in the
Russian embassy to Azerbaijan, Day.Az did not manage to learn comments
of the Russian side about this issue.

USA trying to break up Armenian-Russian military relations, general says

May 22, 2000

Russia
has to ensure that Armenia has the means to defend itself from threats
in the Transcaucasus region, Russian Col-Gen Leonid Ivashov said in an
interview published in the Armenian newspaper 'Ayots Ashkar' on 16th
May. The USA and NATO countries want to prevent the military cooperation
between Armenia and Russia, and "if we are weak it will be easy to rule
us", the general said. The two countries have to forge still closer
military relations, remembering the fact that many Russian and Armenian
officers served together. Ivashov also said that Russia will keep its
military bases in Georgia for the time being, until an agreement can be
made on their withdrawal which would not entail something like "a
retreat". The following is the text of the interview from `Ayots Ashkar'
by Vahan Vardanyan entitled "Russian-Armenian strategic cooperation is a
fact"

[Q] General, how can you evaluate the present
stage of Armenian-Russian cooperation in the context of Russia's new
military doctrine? In this case what is the role of the Russian military
base located in Armenia?

[A] Today is the eighth
anniversary of the signing of the CIS collective security pact. Armenia
is one of the active country members of that pact and conducts the kind
of policy that will ensure that the collective security pact is an
effective mechanism for averting any aggression towards country members.
Armenia also actively participates in the creation of an air defence
system. Russian-Armenian bilateral relations in the military sphere
are successfully developing. We don't make a secret of the fact that we
are interested in the guaranteeing of Armenia's security. I can say that
within the framework of bilateral relations meetings between Russian
and Armenian military servicemen often take place. They meet every month
on a high level and have the aim of finding new prospects for
cooperation and improving our countries' defence. I would like to
emphasize that it is not directed against any other country, everything
is done within the framework of international obligations.

[Q] Can Armenian-Russian military cooperation be considered an existing fact or is a further deepening of relations possible?

[A]
Yes, it may be established that Russian-Armenian strategic cooperation
is an existing fact. But there is still an inner force for improvement.
Armenian military staff are being trained in Russia, we are
strengthening the military base located in Armenia by modernizing the
military equipment. Whenever we have the chance we also support the
Armenian armed forces. We have only the task of maintaining the
necessary level of defence. Unfortunately, the situation in the Caucasus
is not stable on the whole, and the armed forces and the balance of
military potential are also a guarantee for averting conflicts.

[Q]
It is often written in the military press that Armenian-Russian
relations are dependent on individuals. In your opinion is it really so?

[A]
The agreement on friendship, cooperation and mutual support is of
course the strategic line of our two countries. Of course, it will be
fulfilled more effectively if more than simply institutional relations
are created in different structures. Many Russian and Armenian officers
served together. How can that military brotherhood be broken? Do you
suppose that we don't notice how often the US military servicemen try to
put a wedge into our relations? NATO's military servicemen organize
seminars where they speak only about Russian-Armenian military
cooperation. It is not profitable for them. I can say that the USA and
NATO countries actively work with the goal of preventing our
consolidation. If we are weak it will be easy to rule us. Wherever real
integration is observed, our transatlantic guests immediately intervene.

[Q]
But sometimes we have the impression that because of a change of this
or that official the relations between the countries also change. Is it
really so? And what can you say about speculation that Russian generals
are involved in the recent processes in Armenia and have their own
interests?

[A] Undoubtedly the policy is being implemented
by specific individuals. If those persons serve the strategic line of
Armenian-Russian relations, in that case our military and political and
allied relations will go on. A change in the state's political line may
become a reason for our anxiety. As for the Armenian military
servicemen, they are devoted to Armenian-Russian military cooperation.
But it is not true that we military servicemen intrude in political
processes. Yes, Russia has direct interests in Armenia. The essence of
them is to maintain our strategic relations, so that Armenia is stable
and strong from the strategic as well as the economic point of view, so
that it is a friend and colleague for Russia. These are our interests.
The speculation means that somebody does not like the fact that Russia
assists Armenia. The US embassy is more active than we are. But that
activity is directed towards breaking up our relations. The USA has
managed to achieve quite serious success in relations with the other
countries of the Transcaucasus, including in the military sphere.

[Q] What is the destiny of the Russian military bases located in the Transcaucasus?

[A]
As for the withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia, we have
finished only the first stage of negotiations and have presented our approaches.
But when we were informed about the terms of all the bases being
withdrawn, and they were brief, we drew Georgia's attention to the
[OSCE] Istanbul summit. And there was no discussion of a withdrawal of
military bases there. Yes, it is necessary to make an arrangement about
the direct terms, but it must not be like a retreat. And it must not be a
situation where immediately after the end of negotiations we start the
withdrawal. So the question is about the maintenance of Russian military
bases and facilities in Georgia and we shall continue this policy. As
for Gyumri military base, that, according to our common opinion, is a
factor of stability in the region, a factor averting aggressive actions
towards Armenia.

[Q] Today the necessity of forming a
Caucasus-wide security system is much spoken about. What is the position
of Russian military servicemen with regard to this matter?

[A]
If the question is about regional security, in that case it is
necessary to talk about the whole region, and here there are the
interests of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia as well as
Turkey. There are fewer US interests. And where there are US troops it
will not make the region more stable. We are ready to participate in a
discussion concerning the problems of regional security, but only
taking into account the interests of all the countries. But the presence
of NATO on the territory of the former Soviet republics is not
acceptable for Russia.

[Q] Recently Armenian Foreign
Minister Vardan Oskanyan stated that the Russian military base located
in Armenia is there to prevent danger from a third side and to guarantee
stability. Do you agree with this?

[A] Yes, I do. That is
really so. It is very important for us so that Armenia is stable. The
domestic instability of any country can be exploited by a third force.
That is why we have to observe so that the Armenian armed forces are
capable of functioning. We must also watch so that the Russian military
base corresponds to the level of those dangers which are present in the
Transcaucasus today. The sum of the potential of the Russian military
base and of our military and political and military and technical
cooperation, as well as the stable development of Armenia, will give us
an opportunity to maintain peace and stability on Armenian territory.

The
military commander in chief of the Commonwealth of Independent States
warned Wednesday that if outside powers intervene in the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, "we shall be on the
brink of a new world war."

The comment by Marshal Yevgeny I.
Shaposhnikov came in the wake of recent indications from Turkish leaders
that they would consider sending arms or even troops to bolster
Azerbaijan in its festering conflict with Armenia. The two former
Soviet republics have fought over the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh for
more than four years in an intractable feud that has claimed more than
1,500 lives and now threatens to pull other countries into the fray.

The
Karabakh conflict "could now develop into a wider military action--God
forbid," said Mikit Kazaryan, an Armenian diplomat in Moscow. Russia
could also be drawn into the Karabakh fighting under the terms of a
collective security agreement it signed last week with several members
of the Commonwealth including Armenia--but not Azerbaijan.

As
new spheres of influence form in the territory where the Soviet empire
once reigned supreme, Russia, Iran and Turkey are all jockeying for
position in the Caucasus Mountains region and Central Asia. Turkey,
which has been courting the Muslim, Turkic Azerbaijanis intensively,
had remained relatively restrained, its ambitions tempered by its
Western orientation and NATO membership. But this week, the Azerbaijanis
lost control of a key town in their own territory and accused Armenia
of attempting to move on Nakhichevan.

Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani
enclave in Armenia bordering Turkey, adds a particularly volatile
element to the conflict because, under a 1921 agreement, Turkey is
charged with serving as guarantor of its territorial integrity. After
Nakhichevan officials appealed to Turkey for help, Turkish President
Turgut Ozal, in Houston for medical treatment, reportedly said, "We'll
send troops to Nakhichevan" and "without hesitation." The Turkish
government, in which Ozal's party no longer holds a majority, does not
appear poised to intervene militarily, but it warned Armenia that "it
will be responsible for the consequences if it does not correct its
aggressive attitude."

Armenians from the foreign minister on down,
however, have denied categorically that they have any territorial
claims on Nakhichevan or have launched any attacks there. According
to the Armenian Foreign Ministry, there have been exchanges of fire on
the Armenia-Nakhichevan border, but only because Armenia was shooting
back at Azerbaijani positions that had begun shelling Armenian villages,
killing at least nine people.

Armenia has also denied occupying
the Azerbaijani town of Lachin, although it acknowledges that Armenian
fighters from Karabakh are now controlling a road that runs through
Azerbaijani territory, past Lachin, to link Armenia to Karabakh. They
were forced to take the road, Armenian officials said, to break the
Azerbaijani blockade of Karabakh that had brought its Armenian
inhabitants to the brink of starvation and disease.

Because the
world community had done nothing to break the blockade for years,
Armenian Foreign Ministry official Matthew Der Manuelian said, the
Armenian militants decided "to take the situation into their own hands.
They were desperate because their families, their children, were
hungry."

Der
Manuelian said certain factions in Azerbaijan, which is in the throes
of an election campaign and a messy power struggle, appear to be trying
to make political capital out of Lachin and Nakhichevan. In typical fashion, Azerbaijani accusations mirrored those of the Armenians. "I
think the Armenians want a war between Russia and Turkey," Fuad
Gadzhiev, a spokesman for the Azerbaijani Embassy in Moscow, said,
"because in that case they'll have a chance to seize their historic
lands in Turkey"--the vast tracts of Turkey that once constituted
western Armenia.

Turkish Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel, who has
much more power in the Turkish government than Ozal, said Wednesday that
he believes Turkish military intervention would be an error. In
Washington, State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said Turkey
has played a positive role in the Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute. However,
she quickly added that the U.S. government "does not support
intervention in this conflict by any outside party." Times staff writer Norman Kempster in Washington contributed to this article.

President
Vladimir Putin has approved a government proposal on creating joint
Russian and Armenian military forces, the Interfax news agency reported.
One of the joint forces' main tasks will be to cover Russia and
Armenia's land borders and work within the Collective Security Treaty
Organization, a regional military alliance of post-Soviet states.
According to a presidential decree, Putin has ordered the Russian
Defense Ministry and the Foreign Ministry to hold talks with Armenia on
reaching an agreement. The two sides are creating a joint command, whose
leader will be appointed by the Supreme Commander of the Armenian Armed
Forces in agreement with the Supreme Commander of the Russian Armed
Forces. During peacetime, the commander of the joint forces will be
subordinate to Armenia's military Chief of Staff. During wartime, he
will be subordinate to the commander of Russia's southern military
district or the Armenian Chief of Staff, depending on the situation and
the decision of both militaries' chief commanders. The military
cooperation project was proposed by the Defense Ministry with the
agreement of the Foreign Ministry and other interested federal agencies.

Russia
is a ”supplier” of security for Armenia and will never allow anyone to
harm or attack Armenia, Vitaly Naumkin, scientific director of the
Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences said
during the Valdai international dialogue club’s visiting session in
Yerevan, speaking on Russia’s armament supply to Azerbaijan.

“Today,
no one can deny that Russia is a security supplier for Armenia, Russia
will never allow Armenia to be harmed or attacked. If anyone attacks
Armenia, Russia will take part in defending Armenia, this is absolutely
obvious”, he said.

In response to an observation that Armenia is
the strategic partner of Russia, however Russia is selling weapons to
Azerbaijan, which in its turn is using those weapons to shoot Nagorno
Karabakh and Armenia, Naumkin said: “This is a very serious matter,
which our Armenian colleagues don’t accept. Let’s just say that we live
in the post-Soviet territory, where the strategic line of Russia is
having friendly relations with all states in the area. It’s not about
that Russia is carrying out some actions which can harm Armenia, I think
this is completely ruled out. Russia and Azerbaijan have
military-technical cooperation, nobody denies it, however, I think, it
is a constraining factor”.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Dear reader,

Arevordi will be taking a sabbatical to tend to personal matters. New blog commentaries will henceforth be posted on an irregular basis. The comments board however will continue to be moderated on a regular basis.

The last 20 years or so has also helped me see Russia as the last front against scourges of Westernization, Globalism, American expansionism, Zionism, Islamic extremism and pan-Turkism. I have also come to see Russia as the last hope humanity has for the preservation of classical western civilization, Apostolic Christianity and the traditional nation-state. This realization compelled me to create this blog in 2010. Immediately, this blog became one of the very few voices in the vastness of cyberia that dared to preach about the dangers of Globalism and the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance, and the only voice preaching the strategic importance of Armenia remaining within Russia's orbit. From about 2010 to 2015 I did monthly, at times weekly, commentaries about Russian-Armenian relations and Eurasian geopolitics in general. It was very difficult as I had no assistance in this endeavor. The time I put into this blog therefore came at the expense of work and family. But a powerful feeling inside me urged me to keep going; and I did.

When Armenia finally joined the EEU and integrated its armed forces into Russia's military structures a couple of years ago, I finally felt a deep sense of satisfaction and relaxation, as if a very heavy burden was lifted off my shoulders. I finally felt that my personal mission was accomplished. I therefore felt I could take a step back, as I really needed the rest. Simply put: I have lived to see the institutionalization of Russian-Armenian alliance. Also, I feel more confident now that Armenians are collectively recognizing the strategic importance of Armenia's ties with Russia. Moreover, I feel satisfied knowing that, at least on a subatomic level, I had a hand in the outcome. As a result, I feel a strong sense of mission accomplished. I therefore no longer have the urge to continue as in the past. In other words, the motivational force that had propelled me in previous years has been gradually dissipating because I feel that this blog has lived to see the realization of its stated goal. Going forward, I do not want to write merely for the sake of writing. Also, I do not want to say something if I have nothing important to say. I feel like I have said everything I needed to say. Henceforth, I will post seasonal commentaries about topics I find important. I will however continue moderating the blog's comments section on a regular basis; ultimately because I'm interested in what my readers have to say and also because it's through readers here that I am at times made aware of interesting developments.

To limit clutter in the comments section, I kindly ask all participants of this blog to please keep comments coherent and strictly relevant to the featured topic of discussion. Moreover, please realize that when there are several anonymous visitors posting comments simultaneously, it becomes very confusing (not to mention extremely annoying) trying to figure out who is who and who said what.Therefore, if you are here to engage in conversation, make an observation, express an idea or simply attack me, I ask you to at least use a moniker to identify yourself. Moreover, please appreciate the fact that I have put an enormous amount of information into this blog. In my opinion, most of my blog commentaries and articles, some going back ten-plus years, are in varying degrees relevant to this day and will remain so for a long time to come. Articles in this blog can therefore be revisited by longtime readers and new comers alike. I therefore ask the reader to treat this blog as a depository of important information relating to Eurasian geopolitics, Russian-Armenian relations and humanity's historic fight against the evils of Globalism and Westernization.